12/4/19

Our world is a work in progress

By: Tabitha Korol

It was by sheer chance that I came across a letter written by a self-described unqualified person who nevertheless had the temerity to comment at length where s/he had little expertise.  The venue was classes held for and taught by retirees, usually professionals in their field.   This course concerned the history of America, our progress over the past 100 years, and the changes to our culture.  The presenter was Captain F of the United States Navy, who has Masters’ degrees in Engineering, Naval War College (Home of Thought for the USN), and International Affairs; and the complainant was someone who, despite the years, seems to have joined the mindset of those high school and college students who fulminate emotionally against concepts that differ from their own, excusing themselves from the need to offer substantive facts.

M. Sands” is a fitting appellation as sand is a fine mass that is quite unusable for any kind of construction – in this instance, the building of ideas.  It was clear from his/her letter that here was just another person who had uncritically accepted the language of the left regarding climate change and  sustainability, yet felt qualified to dismiss these seminars as “unproductive.”

Rather than intelligently ponder the information offered over the six-week-course period by a man who had achieved the distinguished position and rank of captain in the United States Navy, the complainant chose to cower behind a full set of conditioned prejudices.  S/he expected the instructor to provide a summation on what we must do now to achieve world peace when the world doesn’t even share the same definition of “peace.”  For us, it is security, respect, harmony, mutual understanding and an end to hostilities.  For Islam and socialism, it is living in complete subservience under either of those totalitarian ideologies.

In the written grievance, Sands asked how America should go forward into the “new world,” meaning that s/he had already defined the world with the terminology of the left – the catastrophists who have alienated and polarized so many people with their frenetic campaign to reduce the standard of living for most of Earth’s population.  Despite Sands’s rigid beliefs, no credible scientific body has ever said that climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less predict the extinction of the human species.  There is no scientific basis for the doomsayers – not that humans will die or even how they would die.  The world is a work in progress.

What is true is that we are being subjected to a barrage of lies and pseudo-science by the so-called elite, with the purpose of frightening the masses (particularly the children, the next generation) into surrendering every aspect of daily life to their control – from the food we eat to the clothes we wear, to lessened healthcare, diminished transportation, and to the impoverished life that existed before the Industrial Revolution.  They do not reveal that today’s humans produce enough food for 10 billion people, 25% more than needed, and wheat yield relies more on tractors, irrigation and fertilizer, and fossil fuels for shipments than on climate changes.  The denial of our freedom of choice is the Golden Fleece coveted by the lef, who exalt themselves as the only ones with the percipient intelligence to be trusted.

Captain F spelled out what we should know, and he rightly did not presume to provide a definitive recipe for the future. This would have been presumptuous, considering that the vagaries of the future, our choices for good or ill, remain in flux.

We know that natural disasters have occurred throughout history, but the displacement of people is more often due to armed conflict, especially in Islamic regions.  However, economic development makes us less vulnerable to most of the threats.  With the increase in our expertise in transportation and aid (such as first responders to areas of natural disasters), there has been a 99.7% decline in the death toll from those natural disasters.  Therefore, advancement and improvement under the auspices of our current administration should continue unimpeded.

Instead of promoting safety, comfort and an improvement in the economies that allow people to stay in their home countries, the Globalist-leftists are using these now-restive populations to destabilize western societies.  Migrants from Central and South American countries have the hope of living better, some expecting handouts, but it is known that the encouragement and financing are made by the left for a globalist agenda, and they include George Soros, transnational organizations, corporations, churches, celebrities, and more.  Migration from Arabic countries is due primarily to the harsh life dictated by Islamic law and by the Koranic command to spread Islam worldwide, whether by an overwhelming population or by the sword.  The subsequent increased crime rate throughout Europe is destabilizing the entire continent, causing the indigenous population to leave.  Many have concluded that this disruption is by design.

The UN guidelines about CO2 that call for the masses to eat, dress and live as in an earlier era do not apply to the elite.  We will stop driving our cars, but they will continue their transnational flights.  The future that should concern us is one that is dominated by an overarching Big Government, the United Nations, that assumes it knows best and therefore has the right to manage the lives of the ignorant masses.  Their influence extends deeply into academia, as children are always the first line of attack.  Schools are robbing the students of an education that teaches critical thinking, the power to reason, the essential ability to make decisions based on facts rather than feelings.  The ability to think for oneself is lethal to the Globalist-leftist agenda.

The educational textbooks, rife with Islamic and Marxist propaganda, must be replaced with the moral law of our Judeo-Christian heritage.  The left is planning to return our world to the era prior to the Industrial Revolution, with the populace unable to create or grasp how to improve their lot.  This is why we must not cede our rights to government-controlled healthcare, gun control, indistinct borders and the loss of our sovereignty.

Sands demands a complete itinerary of our future direction.  We have no strategy other than staying the course set for us by our Founding Fathers and not being overcome by those who want to destroy our progress.  Sands called us arrogant, but it is not arrogance to say that we have created the best nation on the planet with the best laws by which to live and thrive, and ours is the ultimate destination of migrants.

When Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” he unhesitatingly replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”  The best way to ensure that Islam, socialism, Marxism, etc., do not get to overtake us, is to continue to work for the American ideals of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, by maintaining the strongest defense for times of war while still living in peace; encourage research and production, and be an inspiration to people in other nations.   We must never accept the ideologies that lead to the restriction of liberty, the forfeiture of happiness and even the loss of life.

I believe that we are back on course despite an eight-year setback and if our current administration is permitted to continue with reducing taxes, balancing trade with other countries, improving our military (Teddy Roosevelt’s “Walk softly and carry a big stick”), and disallowing the Marxist faction of our government to take hold, we will be able to look forward to a good future for generations to come.  And those like M. Sands who are self-censoring will hopefully continue to benefit from a social order with which s/he is allowed to disagree because the one s/he espouses would not tolerate such dissent.

The actual names have been removed to protect their privacy.

With acknowledgment to Charles Scaliger, author of “Act Now to live poor”; The New American; 11.4.19 edition.

12/3/19

Did Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler Read Federalist No. 65?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

While Nancy Pelosi has been ‘prayerful’ during this impeachment inquiry process, Congressman Adam Schiff, HPSCI Chairman has been touting the Constitution and poor old Congressman Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the House Judiciary remains lost as he was forced to give up control of the impeachment process after the stupid hearing with Corey Lewandowski. Meanwhile…

Whitaker will testify before House panel after tense back ...

Nadler, a lawyer himself, has previously railed against impeachment during the Clinton scandal, has invited 3 Constitutional lawyers as witnesses for his first impeachment hearing and the Republicans were only granted 1 witness. Seems Nadler needs several law classes and he and the others meaning Pelosi and Schiff should actually read Federalist No. 66. More on that later.

Nadler has called: Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law professor. His position on impeachment and argument is that President Trump can be impeached even without evidence of a crime. He published an article in The New Yorker in May of 2017 stating his argument which is all the actions of the president are a pattern and can be collectively used in sum as impeachable. Feldman has also called for a Special Counsel to be assigned to investigate Rudy Giuliani and AG William Barr.

Another Nadler witness is Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford. Her concentration including being on the faculty at Stanford is voting rights and political processes. Karlan was on the Obama shortlist to be a Supreme Court Justice while her resume includes being an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and was a commissioner on the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Outside of being known as snarky, she often quotes poetry in her classes. Karlan was one of the 42 legal scholars that signed a letter before Trump took office urging him to change his views on several issues and was very critical of his rhetoric.

The last Nadler witness is Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. Gerhardt penned an article in the Atlantic stating that impeachment proceedings are fully legitimate. Gerhardt is also a CNN legal analyst and was once the deputy media director for Al Gore’s senate campaign. Further, Gerhardt counseled Clinton on judicial selections and was Special Counsel to Senator Patrick Leahy on the nominations to the Supreme Court of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The only witness the Republicans were allowed to invite was Democrat and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Turley appears to be an okay feller when it comes to Constitutional law. He has provided testimony often on The Hill. He is often the ‘go-to’ person for being a Constitutional originalist and protector of separation of powers within government. Turley has called out the Democrats several times including over the Russia investigation. In a recent interview, Turley had this summary on the impeachment:

The fact is I think that this is the – well certainly the shortest investigation, it’s certainly the thinnest evidentiary record, and it’s the narrowest impeachment ever to go to the Senate, if they were to go on this record….did they prove something was contemptible or impeachable? Contemptible is not synonymous with impeachable. The President does set policy. They have three conversations, two of them directly, one with Senator Johnson, one with Ambassador Sondland, where Trump denies a quid pro quo….so you have a conflicted record. And the question is what do you need to remove a sitting president?…

Whether this is intentional or not, it seems designed to fail in the Senate.

Meanwhile back to Federalist No. 65:

Hamilton argued that the Senate was the body to hold the impeachment trial and not the Supreme Court where evidence of misconduct of public men was a violation of public trust, meaning that society is a victim of that violation. That misconduct would contain injuries to society itself. In Federalist No. 66, Hamilton went on to further argue that the impeachment proceedings would seldom fail to agitate the passion of the whole community and divide parties into less friendly factions stating it would become a condition and test of political strengths between warring political tribes.

It is no wonder that President Trump reminds the nation often of his accomplishments as they are hardly injurious to society, in fact just the opposite.

11/19/19

Looking for Safe Servitude via Socialism

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

I read where roughly 52 percent of today’s younger generation believes socialism/communism would be preferable to our constitutional republican form of government; a troubling thought.

What happened that so many of our fellow citizens never figured out what America is all about?

My first thought had to do with an op-ed piece in USA Today written by Marion Smith, 30 years after the Berlin Wall’s collapse, Americans don’t understand communism’s dangers.  Hard as it may be to believe, there’s an entire generation who didn’t learn the lessons associated with the Cold War, the building of/and eventual destruction of the Berlin Wall.

For a quick course in history, one need only watch the movie, Bridge of Spies, which accurately depicts the political tension of the Cold War, one scene, in particular, showing individuals fleeing the oppression of communism

From a window seat vantage point of a train passing over ‘No Man’s Land’, we observe an attempted escape, one that lasts only moments, as border guards shoot down those trying to scale the wall into West Germany.  We watched helplessly as the image disappears from view.

What would make an individual risk his/her life to escape the clutches of communist East Germany?  Was life so bad that such a risk was considered worth it?

A better question might be, why would anyone want to exchange individual liberty under our constitutional republican form of government, imperfect as it may be, and choose to live in servitude under socialism/communism?

Before I answer; there was a devotional talk given last month at BYU Idaho by James Gordon,  Always Remember, in which he brought up the importance of having a firm recollection of the exodus from Egypt.  He brought up the plight of  Israel as they were being pursued by Pharaoh, their backs against the sea and in great fear.

10 ¶ And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them, and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the Lord.

11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.”

You know the ‘rest of the story’, that Moses parted the sea and they crossed on dry ground. They all made it to the other side, that is, all except Pharaoh’s army who were swallowed up by the sea when it came crashing down on them.

With only a little faith in God, they followed Moses, reluctantly; but they followed and were shown that their God really was God.  The story has survived for thousands of years, a reminder to have faith in God regardless of circumstances.

Fast forward to the present… those pushing for socialism/communism see our circumstances as dire; perhaps they are exaggerating what they see in order to institute their vision of Utopia, the fact remains far too many folks doubt, or never were taught about the divine nature tied with our particular constitutional republic, that would be mixing religion with government and somebody convinced the Supreme Court that schools can’t teach that stuff.

The Founders of our nation understood and referenced our dependence on God at every opportunity.  The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and included Bill of Rights represent an acknowledgment that God is the Author of our Liberty and yet godless historians have been arguing against that very fact for the past two hundred plus years.

In more recent years the public schools and places of higher learning have been taken over by socialists/communists.  We send young minds to become educated and learn how to think; instead, they’re attending indoctrination centers churning out intellectual left-leaning dummies.

There’s an entire generation that thinks we’d all be better off living under socialism/communism.  Everyone would be so much better off if we’re taken care of equally by some perfectly ordered government program.  There would be no income inequality; and besides, property is evil, nobody should have more of it than anyone else.

These young minds were never enlightened or given an explanation as to the divine nature of individual liberty or that we are indebted to our Creator for His having ordained this land to be an inheritance for those willing to follow His commandments.  If only we could impact their minds in the same way the Israelites remember the exodus from Egypt.

Listen to the politicians pandering for votes, promising the fruits of labor to all, not caring that someone else provided the fruit or that there might not be enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, much less desires. The safety net of servitude promises the basics of life; what else could you want?  Become a servant of the state and all this will be yours.

Of course, those who don’t approve will be forced to go along with it once the constitution is shredded; we’ll be a Socialist Democracy where the majority runs the show. There won’t be any restrictions keeping the state from confiscating everything and becoming all-powerful; a sad replacement for the constitutional republic God had intended.

I can hear the pleadings from those marching headlong into socialism/communism, “Let us alone, that we may serve the state…”

11/7/19

Article 5 of the US Constitution: What “Convention of States Project” (COS) isn’t telling you

By: Publius Huldah

  1. Article 5 provides two ways to amend our Constitution: Congress (1) proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification (this was done with our existing 27 Amendments); or (2) calls a convention for proposing amendments if two-thirds of the State Legislatures apply for it. We’ve never had a convention under Article V – they are dangerous! 1
  2. But today, various well-funded factions are lobbying State Legislators to ask Congress to call an Article V convention. One faction, the “Convention of States Project” (COS), claims to be for limited government and is marketing the convention to appeal to conservatives. COS claims (falsely) that our Framers told us to amend the Constitution when the federal government violates the Constitution.2
  3. COS’s claim is absurd – it’s like saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.
  4. COS’s claim is false. Not only did our Framers never say what COS claims,
  • Our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a small handful of enumerated powers (they are listed on this one-page chart).3  Furthermore, it’s impossible to rein in the federal government with amendments because when the feds usurp powers not delegated, they are ignoring the existing constitutional limitations on their powers.
  • All of the proposed amendments produced by COS and their sympathizers markedly INCREASE the powers of the federal government by delegating powers the federal government has already usurped; by granting new powers to the federal government; by transferring power from Representatives elected by the People to the Deep State; or by stripping States of their existing sovereign powers.4 See:

Mark Levin’s “liberty” amendments: legalizing tyranny,

COS Project’s “simulated convention” dog and pony show and what they did there,

The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster,

Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

Wolf PAC’s Amendment for “fair and free elections”, and

Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure 5

  1. So what’s the real agenda of those (primarily George Soros and the Kochs) who are financing the push for a convention? A convention provides the opportunity to replace our existing Constitution with a new constitution which moves us into a completely new system of government, such as the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are economically and politically integrated and a Parliament and combined militarized police force are set up over them.6

The phrase within Article V, “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, doesn’t restrict the Delegates to the Convention to merely proposing Amendments.  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that a People have the “self-evident Right” to throw off their government and set up a new government.7  We’ve already invoked that Right twice:  In 1776 we invoked it to throw off the British Monarchy; and in 1787, James Madison invoked it to throw off our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation (AOC), and set up a new Constitution [the one we now have] which created a new government.

This is what happened:

There were defects in the AOC, so on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia

“for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”

But the Delegates ignored their instructions from Congress, and similar instructions from their States 8 and wrote a new Constitution which created a new government.  Furthermore, the new Constitution had its own new mode of ratification:  Whereas amendments to the AOC had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States; 9 the new Constitution provided at Article VII thereof, that it would be ratified when only 9 States approved it.

And in Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a Delegate to the Federal “amendments” Convention of 1787, invoked that same Right as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions and writing a new Constitution which created a new government.10

  1. If we have a convention today, the Delegates will have that same power to get rid of our second Constitution and impose a third Constitution. New Constitutions are already prepared or in the works!  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, is ratified by a national referendum (See Art. XII, §1). The States don’t vote on it – they are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.
  2. So why was the convention method added to Article V? The Anti-federalists wanted it added because they wanted another convention so they could get rid of the Constitution just drafted.  James Madison and Alexander Hamilton understood that a people have the right to meet in convention and draft a new constitution whether the convention method was in Article V or not.  So this is why Madison and Hamilton went along with adding the convention method to Article V; and this is why, as early as April 1788, they and our future first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay started warning against another convention.
  3. Using the pretext of merely getting amendments, the Globalists want a convention so they can complete their coup against us and get a new Constitution which moves us into the New World Order.
  4. States should rescind the applications they have already submitted to Congress.

Endnotes:

1 That is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, four US Supreme Court Justices, and other jurists & scholars warn against it!  See their words HERE.

2 See Michael Farris’s quote HERE. None of our Framers said such a silly thing as Farris claims!  Our Framers actually said the purpose of Amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution, and they all knew that the real purpose of a convention is to get another constitution.

3 IGNORANCE is our problem.  Americans don’t know what our Constitution says.  Can you recite by heart the enumerated powers granted to Congress over the Country at Large?

4 Mark Levin’s amendment to “grant the States authority to check Congress” [p. 169 of “The Liberty Amendments”] provides that three-fifths of the state legislatures may vote to override a federal statute and certain Executive Branch regulations provided that the States do so within a certain time period.  When that time period has expired, the States are forever prohibited from exercising the override.

Levin’s amendment would strip the States of their long-recognized individual natural right – much written about by our Framers – to NULLIFY all acts of any Branch of the federal government which violate our Constitution. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

5 The federal term limits amendment would transfer power from US Senators and Representatives (elected by the People) to the Deep State (a massive body of nameless, faceless, and unelected bureaucrats who would become the PERMANENT AND TOTALLY UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNING BODY).

6 For the Love of God, your Country and your posterity, READ the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the NAU. This is what the Establishment Elite wants and can get with a convention!

7 The Declaration of Independence is part of the “Organic Law” (the Fundamental Law) of our Land.

8 This Delegate Flyer summarizes the instructions the States gave the Delegates.

9 See ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation.

10 In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), James Madison says the Delegates knew that reform such as was set forth in the new Constitution was necessary for our peace and prosperity.  They knew that sometimes great and momentous changes in established governments are necessary – and a rigid adherence to the old government takes away the “transcendent and precious right” of a people to “abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” … “and it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some INFORMAL AND UNAUTHORIZED PROPOSITIONS, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens…”

09/4/19

Read the Commerce Clause in the Light Cast by the Other Parts of Our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

The parts of our federal Constitution are so interrelated that it is impossible to understand a single clause therein without considering all of the other provisions of our Constitution.

Article I, §8, clause 3, US Constitution, states:

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The original intent of the power to regulate commerce “among the several States” is proved here:  Does the “interstate commerce” clause authorize Congress to force us to buy health insurance?  That paper proves that the primary purpose of the power is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandise – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.

But recently, some have asserted that since “foreign Nations”, “the several States”, and “the Indian Tribes” are grouped together in the same clause, it necessarily follows that Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” with each of them is identical.  And since Congress has broad powers over foreign commerce, they conclude that Congress has those same broad powers over interstate commerce, and may lawfully, for example, ban the movement of physical goods [such as firearms] across state lines.

So let’s look at that clause in the Light cast by the rest of the Constitution.

Continue reading

07/18/19

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

We were watching a movie the other day on one of the regular channels where you get to see a few minutes of the movie followed by several minutes of commercials.  The efforts of the moviemakers got lost somewhere between combining car, house and life insurance, more comfortable jockey shorts and deciding which brand of whiskey best matched the outdoor sportsman in us.

At a certain point, you consider yourself ‘invested’ in watching the movie until its conclusion while attempting to ignore interruptions.  Maybe this is how cable companies have figured how to get folks to pay for adding movie channels; just interrupt the programming on the regular channels enough and people will pay not to see commercials.

The movie was ending as the credits began to roll across the screen, a chance to give individuals who’d put the movie together credit.  Did I say roll across the screen; I meant sprint past at nearly the speed of light.  Evelyn Woods Speed Reading Course had not prepared me for this particular exercise.  To make it more challenging, they split the screen so that the credits for the previously viewed movie, now in a tiny box in the corner of the screen, could play out while introducing the next feature.

Continue reading

07/4/19

The Betsy Ross Flag: 5 Things You Didn’t Know About This American Icon

Ammo.com

5 Things You Didn't Know About the Betsy Ross FlagSecond only to Old Glory itself, the Betsy Ross Flag is the American icon. Its clean design is similar to our current flag, with 13 stripes and only 13 stars in a circle (representing the equal status of what were then the 13 united individual sovereign nations). This simplicity is perhaps the reason for its popularity among American Patriots and Constitutionalists, as it hearkens back to an earlier time when America was still a place of freedom and resistance to tyranny.

But while this flag is the oldest attested flag for the American nation, many people don’t know its history. Who was Betsy Ross? And how did this iconic design become one of the strongest symbols of freedom?

1. Betsy Ross was shunned by Quakers and her family.

A Quaker like many in Pennsylvania, Betsy Ross was born Elizabeth Griscom. Once her education in public school ended, her father had her apprenticed to an upholsterer. It was at this job that she met her future husband, John Ross – an Episcopal and brother of George Ross, who signed the Declaration of Independence. Since the Quaker community frowned upon inter-denominational marriage, the two eloped when Betsy was 21 years old.

After the elopement, Betsy was estranged from her family and expelled from her Quaker congregation. Her husband died a few years later during the Revolution. (Some have speculated that Betsy was the “beautiful young widow” who caught Carl von Donop’s eye after the Battle of Iron Works Hill.) It was after John Ross’ death that Betsy rejoined the Quakers – this time the Free Quakers, fighters who supported the war effort.

Continue reading

07/4/19

Independence Day: The Forgotten History of America’s 4th of July and What It Commemorates

Ammo.com

Every American knows what Independence Day is. Alongside Christmas and Thanksgiving, it’s one of the few holidays that hasn’t fallen prey to having to be celebrated on the closest Monday, rather than the actual day it falls on. However, less known is the history of the Fourth of July as a holiday. How did the celebrations emerge and what is the history of this, America’s birthday?

Few know that the 13 Colonies actually legally separated from the mother country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, on July 2nd, not July 4th. This was the day that the Continental Congress voted to approve a resolution of independence. After voting in favor of independence, Congress then turned toward the actual drafting of the resolution, which we know today as the Declaration of Independence. It was on July 4th that Congress approved the resolution.

For his part, John Adams believed that July 2nd would be the day to be celebrated throughout the ages in the United States. While his prediction was two days off, his prediction of how the day would be celebrated is pretty close to the mark:

“It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

Continue reading

06/25/19

Dwindling Right to Freedom of Movement

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

Hello America, it’s a little over a week until we celebrate our Independence Day and consider all the rights and privileges associated with citizenship.  What did our founders have in mind for this Great Experiment in self-governance and, have we kept that vision?

Some folks call me a dreamer for holding on to my belief that America is the land of promise, that our constitution was divinely inspired and if applied properly would allow us all to achieve the highest level of personal freedom available on the planet; but according to the news media that term should be reserved for young illegal aliens who claim they are immune from immigration laws or that they shouldn’t be deported simply because their parents violated our immigration laws.

Maybe our sense of history needs to be ignited, like the fuse of a 4th of July bottle rocket sent into the night sky, a chance to remind us of battles long ago fought for… for what?  I know they fought for something; must have been for lower prices on Dr. Pepper so we could enjoy grilled hamburgers with a stack of crunchy potato chips.  They fought so we could send a women’s soccer team to represent our country in the World Cup Games; well, most of the athletes on our team acknowledge and stand when our National Anthem is played…

Those battles were fought to define us as a nation that honors and respects inalienable rights of individuals, generally defined as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  These rights were later specifically defined as the Bill of Rights in our Constitution; however, among the individual rights so defined, the individual’s right to freedom of movement within these United States wasn’t listed because our founders didn’t think individual freedom of movement would ever be in question.

Continue reading

10/30/18

What the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

One of the silliest of the many unsupported claims made by those lobbying for an Article V convention is that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.1

It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that their claim makes as much sense as saying that since people violate the Ten Commandments, God should amend the Ten Commandments.2

And since none of our Framers said such a silly thing, the convention lobby can’t produce a quote where it was said.

Even so, some have believed it and repeated it to others.  Americans!  We must demand that people prove their claims before we believe what they tell us.

I will show you original source documents, and you can see for yourself what our Framers really said about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution.

Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted.  He kept a daily Journal. I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.

Madison’s Journal shows what our Framers said at the convention about the purpose of amendments to our Constitution:

  • Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787: the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision.”
  • George Mason said on June 11, 1787: The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective,” as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution [i.e., a defect] calling for amendmt.” [boldface mine] 3
  • Alexander Hamilton said on Sep. 10, 1787: amendments remedy defects in the Constitution. 4

The Federalist Papers

In Federalist No. 43 at 8, Madison said the purpose of amendments to the Constitution is to repair “discovered faults” and “amendment of errors”; and “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience.

In Federalist No. 85 (13th para), Hamilton said useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not…the mass of its powers” 5

Throughout Federalist No. 49, Madison warned against a convention for proposing amendments, and showed that a convention is neither proper nor effective to restrain government when it encroaches.

Madison’s letter of August 28, 1830 to Edward Everett (p. 383-403)

Madison says:

“Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U.S…” (p. 398)

So he is talking about provisions – defects – in the Constitution which permit the federal government to abuse the States.  He goes on to say:

“…the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn…” 6

So he’s saying that when a defect in the Constitution exposes the States to abuses by the federal government, the remedy is to amend the Constitution.

To fully grasp Madison’s point, we must look at his letter in its historical context of the Tariff Act of 1828:  The southern states bought manufactured goods from England.  England bought southern cotton.  But infant industries in the Northeast couldn’t compete with the English imports. So during 1828, Congress passed a Tariff Act which imposed such high tariffs on English imports that the southern states could no longer buy them.  England stopped buying southern cotton. This devastated the southern economy. So South Carolina wanted to nullify the Tariff Act (the “Tariff of Abominations”); and developed a theory that a State had a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law, and the nullification would be presumed valid, unless three-fourths of the States said it wasn’t valid.

Madison opposed South Carolina’s theory because the Tariff Act was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 1, US Constitution.  States can’t nullify a constitutional law! 7

But while the Tariff Act was constitutional, it was abusive:  Article I, §8, cl. 1 was being used to benefit infant industries in the Northeast at the expense of the southern states. 8

So what’s the remedy “within the purview of the Constitution” for the Tariff Act of 1828?  Madison doesn’t spell it out – but obviously Art. I, §8, cl. 1 could be amended to say that Congress may impose tariffs only to raise revenue to carry out the enumerated powers; and may not impose tariffs in order to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one section of the Country at the expense of other sections. 9

Washington’s Farewell Address

In his Address, Washington warns that we must require people in the federal government to confine themselves within their constitutional powers; and we must not permit one department [branch] of the federal government to encroach on the powers of the other departments (p. 15-19).  He then says,

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (p.19)

So Washington is talking about what the people may come to see as defects in the Constitution:

  • If we want one branch of the federal government to have a power which the Constitution delegates to another branch, we should amend the Constitution to redistribute that power.10
  • If we want the federal government to have a power the Constitution doesn’t grant, we should amend the Constitution to delegate the additional power. No matter how desirable it is for the federal government to have the additional power, we must not permit it to exercise the power by usurpation.11

And this is what Alexander Hamilton, who along with James Madison assisted Washington in drafting his Farewell Address, 12 had previously said in Federalist No. 78:  The representatives of the people [Congress] may not violate the Constitution even if a majority of their constituents want them to:

“…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…”  (5th para from the end)

Our Constitution isn’t defective, it’s ignored!

Our Constitution is a 5,000 year miracle.  Our problem is everyone ignores it. The solution is to dust it off, read it, learn it, and enforce it.  Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.

Demand Proof of what people say before you believe them.

If Americans would follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and demand proof of the claims the convention lobby makes, they would spot the false claims and preserve our blessed Constitution.  Judges & Juries require trial lawyers to prove their claims. Demand the same from lobbyists for a convention!

Endnotes:

1 Michael Farris claimed [but couldn’t link to a quote because Mason didn’t say it]:

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”

2 Amendments can’t “rein in” the fed. gov’t when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. Hello?

3 Mason’s concern was that the new fed. gov’t wouldn’t agree to amendments needed to correct defects in the new Constitution:

  • Under the Articles of Confederation (our 1st Constitution), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the States (see ART. 13). So Art. V of the new Constitution dispensed with the requirement that Congress approve amendments.
  • Who should be able to propose amendments? Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of 2/3 of the States.  But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without asking Congress because Congress might become oppressive and not permit the States to get the necessary amendments.

So the convention method was added. And it provided a way for States to propose amendments.  But it also provided a convenient opportunity to get a new Constitution, since the delegates would have that transcendent right, recognized in our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and write a new constitution which creates a new government.

George Mason hated the new Constitution.  He said on Aug. 31, 1787 that he “would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another convention. Everybody knew that to get a new Constitution, you need a convention.

Madison and the other Framers went along with adding the convention method because they knew the people had the right to meet in convention and draft a new Constitution whether or not the convention method was added to Art. V [e.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville  p. 299 at 2.]; and they couldn’t stop People in the future from doing what they had just done.  So Madison, Hamilton & John Jay promptly started warning of the dangers of another convention: see the Brilliant Men handout.

4 Here’s an illustration of what States soon saw as a defect in our Constitution:  Art. III, §2, cl. 1 delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State”. But when a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). So the 11th Amendment was ratified to take away from federal courts the power to hear such cases.

5 The Constitution drafted at the federal convention of 1787 delegates only a tiny handful of powers to the fed. gov’t.  See this chart.

6 Madison continues, “… according to a process applicable by the States.”  Madison always said that when States want amendments, they should ask their congressional delegation to propose them.  E.g., Madison’s letter of Nov. 2, 1788 to Turberville (p. 299 at 2.).

7 See Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1835) HERE  (p. 573-607).

8 The Tariff Act of 1828 violated our Founding Principle (2nd para of the Declaration of Independence) that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business.

9 In the very next paragraph, Madison says that when there is a pattern of usurpations and abuses, we must step outside of the Constitution and resort to the original right of self-defense: resistance, i.e., nullification or revolution (p. 398).

10 E.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 11 delegates to Congress the power to declare war.  But if we want the President to have that power, we should amend the Constitution to delegate that power to the President.  We must not permit the President to exercise that power by usurpation!

11 If we wanted the fed. gov’t to exercise power over labor unions, wages & hours, safety standards, food & drugs, manufacturing standards, agriculture, energy, housing, transportation, education, medical care, the environment, etc., etc., etc., we should have amended the Constitution to delegate those powers to the fed. gov’t.  But we ignored Washington’s advice, and permitted the fed. gov’t to exercise those powers by usurpation.

12 The Introduction to the Farewell Address (p. 3) says that George Washington composed it with the assistance of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.