Tag Archive: United States Constitution


The New American

George Will Promotes Plan to Grant President Legislative Powers

Written by 

In an April 9 opinion piece published in the Washington Post, commentator George Will praises the Goldwater Institute’s Compact for America and its component calling for an Article V constitutional convention.

Will points out a few of the proposal’s “benefits,” insisting that the balanced budget amendment (BBA) that it aims to enact “delivers immediate benefits to constituents.” Unfortunately, Will’s analysis of the Compact for America ignores several of its distinctly unconstitutional provisions.

First, before state legislatures vote for an Article V con-con proposal such as the Compact for America that could cause real and radical damage to our Constitution, they should first consider whether a balanced budget amendment is necessary and whether it would actually repair the damage already done by a Congress committed to ignoring the constitutional limits on its power.

The fact is that determined citizens and state legislators could rescue the United States from its financial peril without resorting to opening up the Constitution to tinkering by 38 or more state-appointed delegates, many of whom would be bought and paid for by special interests and corporations.

Imagine for a moment the brand of “conservative” delegates that might be chosen by state partisans to represent them at an Article V convention. It isn’t unlikely that Arizona might choose John McCain, Jan Brewer, or Sandra Day O’Connor. New York might send Michael Bloomberg. South Carolina could appoint Lindsey Graham. Similar selections could be predicted in every state.

Next, there is no historical proof that a balanced budget amendment would drive Congress back to within its constitutional corral. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change by adding an amendment to the Constitution.

Whether these bills spend our national treasure on unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.

And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.

Third, rather than forcing Congress to adhere to spending money in only those areas specifically permitted by the Constitution in Article I, the Compact for America’s Balanced Budget Amendment specifically allows Congress to spend money on anything, no matter how unconstitutional, so long as the amount does not exceed the limits set in Section 2 of their BBA. If approved, the CFA’s BBA would do nothing to break Congress of its unconstitutional spending habits, habits that have nearly ruined the economic might of this Republic.

In fact, under the CFA’s budget-balancing scheme, Congress could continue spending on projects and programs not authorized by the Constitution.

Section 3 of the CFA’s BBA explicitly authorizes an increase in the federal debt limit to 105 percent of the actual debt level on the effective date of this amendment. That hardly sounds like a balanced budget and is not something true conservatives should support as a remedy to a runaway federal government.

 

Read More Here

 

…..

Man in despair over billsOr Adding A National Sales Tax To The Income Tax?   

The stated purpose of Compact for America, Inc. is to get a balanced budget amendment (BBA) ratified.  Here is their proposed BBA.  State Legislators recently introduced it in Arizona. 1

The gap between what this BBA pretends to do – and what it actually does – is enormous. It has nothing to do with “balancing the budget” – it is about slipping in a new national sales tax or value-added tax in addition to the existing federal income tax.

We have become so shallow that we look no further than a name – if it sounds good, we are all for it.  We hear, “balanced budget amendment”, and think, “I have to balance my budget; they should have to balance theirs.”  So we don’t read the amendment, we just assume they will have to balance theirs the same way we balance ours – by cutting spending.

But that is not what the BBA does.  In effect, it redefines “balancing the budget” to mean spending no more than your income plus the additional debt you incur to finance your spending.  To illustrate:  If your income is $100,000 a year; but you spend $175,000 a year, you “balance” your budget by borrowing the additional $75,000.  See?

Under the BBA, Congress may continue to spend whatever it likes and incur as much new debt as it pleases – as long as 26 States agree.  And since the States have become major consumers of federal funding, who doubts that they can’t continue to be bought?  Federal grants make up almost 35% of the States’ annual budgets!  The States are addicted to federal funds – who thinks they won’t agree to get more money?

The BBA enshrines Debt as a permanent feature of our Country; gives it constitutional approval; does nothing to reduce spending or “balance the budget”; authorizes a new national tax; and wipes out the “enumerated powers” limitation on the federal government.

Let’s look at the BBA, section by section, using plain and honest English.  And then let’s look at how our Framers wrote our Constitution to strictly control federal spending.

Compact for America’s BBA

Section 1 says the federal government may not spend more than they take from you in taxes or add to the national debt. [Yes, you read that right.]

Section 2 accepts debt as a permanent feature of our Country – the “Authorized Debt”. This is the maximum amount of debt the federal government may incur at any given point in time.

  • Initially, when the Amendment is ratified, the “authorized debt” may not be more than 105% of the then existing national debt.  So!  If the national debt is $20 trillion when the Amendment is ratified, the federal government may not initially add more than 105% of    $20 trillion [or $1 trillion] to the national debt.
  • After that initial addition to the national debt, the “authorized debt” may not be increased unless it is approved by State Legislatures as provided in Section 3.

Section 3 says whenever Congress wants, it may increase the national debt if 26 of the State Legislatures agree.  [Yes, you read that right.]

Section 4 says whenever the national debt exceeds 98% of “the debt limit set by Section 2”, the President shall “impound” sufficient expenditures so that the national debt won’t exceed the “authorized debt”.  And if the President doesn’t do this, Congress may impeach him!

This is a hoot, Folks!  I’ll show you:

  • No debt limit is set by Section 2!  The national debt can be increased at any time if Congress gets 26 State Legislatures to agree.  Can 26 States be bought?
  • Section 6 defines “impoundment” as “a proposal not to spend all or part of a sum of money appropriated by Congress”.  Who believes Congress will impeach the President 2 for failing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress?

Section 5 says any new or increased federal “general revenue tax” must be approved by 2/3 of the members of both houses of Congress.

Now pay attention, because this is a monstrous trick to be played on you:  Section 6 defines “general revenue tax” as “any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax” levied by the federal government.

And when you read the first sentence of Section 5 with the definition of “general revenue taxin place of “general revenue tax”, you see that it says:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote…” 

Do you see?  This permits Congress to impose a national sales tax or value added tax in addition to the income tax, 3 if 2/3 of both houses agree.  [Yes, you read that right.]

 

Read More Here

 

 

Similar Posts:

…..

Independence Hall, where the 1787 Constitution was crafted

Q: How are amendments to the federal Constitution made?

A: Article V of our Constitution provides two method of amending the Constitution:

  1. Congress proposes amendments and presents them to the States for ratification; or
  2. When 2/3 of the States apply for it, Congress calls a convention to propose amendments.

Q: Which method was used for our existing 27 amendments?

A:  The first method was used for all 27 amendments including the Bill of Rights which were introduced into Congress by James Madison. 3

Q:  Is there a difference between a constitutional convention, con con, or Article V Convention?

A:  These names have been used interchangeably during the last 50 years.

Q:  What is a “convention of states”?

A:  That is what the people pushing for an Article V convention now call it. 

Q: Who is behind this push for an Art. V convention?

A:  The push to impose a new Constitution by means of an Article V convention (and using a “balanced budget” amendment as justification) started in 1963 with the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.  1    Today, it is pushed by:

Q:  Why do they want an Article V Convention?

A:  The only way to get rid of our existing Constitution and Bill of Rights is to have an Article V convention where they can re-write our Constitution.  Jordan Sillars, Communications Director for Michael Farris’ “Convention of States”, said:

“… 3. I think the majority of Americans are too lazy to elect honest politicians. But I think some men and women could be found who are morally and intellectually capable of re-writing the Constitution” [boldface mine].

Q: How can they impose a new constitution if ¾ of the States don’t agree to it?

A: Only amendments require ratification by ¾ of the States (see Art. V). But a new constitution would have its own new method of ratification – it can be whatever the drafters want.  For example, the proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a referendum called by the President.

Q: Can a convention be stopped from proposing a new Constitution?

A:  No.  Once the delegates are duly appointed & assembled, they are acting under the inherent authority of A People to alter or abolish their form of government [Declaration of Independence, 2nd para]; and have the sovereign power to do whatever they want at the convention.

Q: Is this what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787?

A:  Yes.  Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  But the delegates ignored this limitation and wrote a new Constitution.  Because of this inherent authority of delegatesit is impossible to stop it from happening at another convention.  And George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you.

Q: Did the delegates at the Convention of 1787 introduce a new mode of ratification for the new Constitution?

A:  Yes. The Articles of Confederation required the approval of all 13 States for amendments to the Articles to be ratified.  But the new Constitution provided it would become effective if only 9 of the 13 States ratified it (Art. VII, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution).

Q:  Who would be delegates at a Convention?

A:  Either Congress appoints whomever they want; or State governments appoint whomever they want.

Q: Who would be chairman at a convention?

A: We don’t know.  But chairmen have lots of power – and George Washington won’t be chairman.

Q: But if the States appoint the delegates, won’t a convention be safe?

A: Who controls your State?  They will be the ones who choose the delegates if Congress permits the States to appoint delegates.  Are the people who control your State virtuous, wise, honest, and true?  [Tell PH if they are, so she can move there.]

Q: But aren’t the States the ones to rein in the federal government?

A: They should have been, but the States have become major consumers of federal funding.  Federal funds make up almost 35% of the States’ annual budgets. The States don’t want to rein in the feds – they don’t want to lose their federal funding.

Q: Did Thomas Jefferson say the federal Constitution should be amended every 20 years?

A: No! In his letter to Samuel Kercheval of July 12, 1816, Jefferson wrote about the Constitution for the State of Virginia, which he said needed major revision.  And remember James Madison’s words in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from the end):

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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

The powers delegated to the feds are “few and defined” – what’s to amend?  All else is reserved to the States or the People – so State Constitutions would need more frequent amendments.  Do you see?

Q:  Did Alexander Hamilton say in Federalist No 85 (next to last para) that a convention is safe?

A:  No!  He said, respecting the ratification of amendments, that we “may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority”.  But today, our State legislatures don’t protect us from federal encroachments because:

  • We have been so dumbed down by progressive education that we know nothing & can’t think;
  • State legislatures have been bought off with federal funds; and
  • Our public and personal morality is in the sewer.

Q: Did Our Framers – the ones who signed The Constitution – think conventions a fine idea?

A:  No!

“Conventions are serious things, and ought not to be repeated.”

 

Read More Here

 

Similar Posts:

…..

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

constitution full.jpg

Image Source :  Wikimedia.org

Public Domain

…..

Georgia Votes for Convention of States to Amend Constitution

Friday, 07 Mar 2014 02:38 PM

By Cheryl K. Chumley

The Georgia state legislature has passed a measure calling for a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution, a move long championed by many in the tea party movement.

The action restricts the convention to topics of limiting the power of the federal government and establishing term limits for federal officials. Georgia’s House voted 107-58 on Thursday to pass the measure, which previously had passed the state Senate.

“An Article V Convention of States would provide an opportunity for the citizens of this great nation to restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government,” Republican state Rep. Buzz Brockway of Lawrenceville said in a statement.

Brockway, the measure’s primary sponsor in the state House, urged “legislators in the other 49 states to join Georgia and call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Under Article V of the Constitution, such a convention can be convened when requested by two-thirds of the states, and it is one of two ways to propose amendments to the nation’s founding document.

The other method – by which all previous constitutional amendments have been initiated — requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. Ratifying the amendment then requires three-fourths of the states to approve it.

“A Convention of States to propose amendments is certainly a legitimate way to limit federal power,” Michael Maharrey, national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, told Newsmax. “It’s one of the methods included in the Constitution to make necessary alterations to the document.”

Read More Here

…..

By March 6, 2014  

Georgia: First State to pass Convention of States Resolution

Measure calls for Convention to propose amendments to limit federal power

State Representative Buzz Brockway (R-Lawrenceville) Celebrates Passage of Convention of States Resolution.

Convention of the States(Atlanta, GA) State Representative Buzz Brockway (R-Lawrenceville) celebrated the passage today of Senate Resolution 736 by Senator Cecil Staton (R- Macon) in the Georgia House of Representatives. SR736 calls for an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution on the limited topics of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and establishing term limits for federal officials

Brockway, the resolution’s primary sponsor in the Georgia House said, “I’m proud Georgia has taken the lead on the very important work of restoring our Republic. An Article V Convention of States would provide an opportunity for the citizens of this great nation to restore the balance of power between the States and the Federal government. I urge Legislators in the other 49 states to join Georgia and call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the U.S. constitution.”

Read More Here

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Establishment vs. Rebels

TheYoungTurks TheYoungTurks

Published on Jun 12, 2013

“In the old days it used to be Democrats versus Republicans, now that’s not really the paradigm anymore when it comes to big government apparently most of the Democrats and Republicans love it either way. And if you dare to strike back against big government well they will strike against you” Cenk Uygur (http://www.twitter.com/cenkuygur) host of The Young Turks discusses the response by the establishment and rebels to the Snowden leak.

Is it More Treasonous to Violate the Constitution or to Expose Those Violations?

Freda Art

Eric Blair
Activist Post

In a free society the government is supposed to be open and transparent while the citizens enjoy privacy. What, then, do you call a society where the government is ultra secretive and all citizens are spied on by the state?

Establishment pundits are frantically attempting to make the NSA spy scandal story about whether the whistleblower is a hero or a traitor instead of debating the real issue — whether broad government spying on U.S. citizens violates their Constitutional rights.

This divide-and-distract strategy has long been used to protect the real criminals to a free society. Some officials are taking the extreme position that the NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, committed treason by releasing proof of what most Americans already suspected, that their every move is being spied on by their government.

These officials, like Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), also happen to be the staunchest advocates for destroying the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment in particular. Snowden broke a corporate disclosure contract; these officials broke their oath to the Constitution. Who are the real traitors here?

Read More Here

******************************************************************************

Sibel Edmonds’ Boiling Frogs

Pardon Me for Taking Offense with Your ‘Pardon- Seeking’ Petition

Tuesday, 11. June 2013

Do Not Mix Up Criminals with WhistleblowersSomeone had the gall to send me this pathetically misguided, ignorant, and demeaning petition requesting a Governmental Pardon for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

I say pathetic because I believe this was a genuine attempt to support this courageous whistleblower, but instead became an establishment-supporting, insulting and self-defeating petition due to the authors’-organizers’ ignorance.

I say misguided because this is a case where the criminals who have violated our Constitution and laws are the ones who should be seeking forgiveness and pardon from the people. The executive branch is the party which has violated the Constitution and broken the supreme laws of this nation, thus in need of repentance and pardoning. Not the courageous whistleblower who took his oath to protect the United States Constitution seriously and actually exercised it.

I say demeaning because it misrepresents and insults the guardians of the United States Constitution, and reduces these truth-telling whistleblowers to criminals-to those who have committed illegalities. Not only that, it simultaneously raises the status of a criminal government to those of kings and emperors who can do no wrong. When the kings engage in criminality they call it ‘the king’s given rights.’ When an irate minority dares to expose the kings’ criminality they are declared a criminal-to dare to challenge the kings.

The insulting ignoramuses who drafted this pathetic petition are giving the president and the executive branch of the United States of America the status of absolute kings and emperors.

Here we have a case where there is a president and his entourage who see themselves as the absolute and untouchable kings of the United States, and break with reckless abandon the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution. They do so repeatedly; with arrogance and impunity.

We have a case where a conscientious citizen of the United States does what his citizenship demands of him: he stands up and protects the Constitution of the United States by exposing the kings engaged in its violation and destruction.

So what do we have so far? Please repeat after me:

We have the United States Executive Branch which has suspended, violated and destructed the United States Constitution and its citizens’ rights.

We have the United States Legislative and Judicial Branches which have abdicated their responsibilities under the United States Constitution, and instead of overseeing and holding accountable the President and his cabinet, who in this case have been violating and destroying the United States Constitution, they have been protecting and collaborating with them.

And we have a true American, a citizen who has taken his US citizenship and citizen responsibilities that go with it very seriously-as demanded by the United States Constitution. He has courageously come forward to inform and warn his country of its rulers’ criminality.

Now please tell me who should be seeking a pardon here? The conscientious citizen who is protecting the mother-of-all laws of his nation-the Constitution? Or the kings who have suspended, violated and broken the laws of this nation? Or the Judiciary and Legislative Branches who have abandoned their responsibility to the people of this nation and their oath to the Constitution?

Read More Here

Sibel Edmonds’   Boiling Frogs

What Is the Government’s Agenda?

Wednesday, 12. June 2013

USA: Where there is No Democracy that Holds Government Accountable; Only a Brainwashed People who are Chaff in the WindIt has been public information for a decade that the US government secretly, illegally, and unconstitutionally spies on its citizens. Congress and the federal courts have done nothing about this extreme violation of the US Constitution and statutory law, and the insouciant US public seems unperturbed.

In 2004 a whistleblower informed the New York Times that the National Security Agency (NSA) was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by ignoring the FISA court and spying on Americans without obtaining the necessary warrants. The corrupt New York Times put the interests of the US government ahead of those of the American public and sat on the story for one year until George W. Bush was safely reelected.

By the time the New York Times published the story of the illegal spying one year later, the law-breaking government had had time to mitigate the offense with ex post facto law or executive orders and explain away its law-breaking as being in the country’s interest.

Last year William Binney, who was in charge of NSA’s global digital data gathering program revealed that NSA had everyone in the US under total surveillance. Every email, Internet site visited and phone call is captured and stored. In 2012 Binney received the Callaway Award for Civic Courage, an annual award given to those who champion constitutional rights at risk to their professional and personal lives.

There have been a number of whistleblowers. For example, in 2006 Mark Klein revealed that AT&T had a secret room in its San Francisco office that NSA used to collect Internet and phone-call data from US citizens who were under no suspicion.

The presstitute media handled these stories in ways that protected the government’s lawlessness from scrutiny and public outrage. The usual spin was that the public needs to be safe from terrorists, and safety is what the government is providing.

The latest whistle blower, Edward Snowden, has sought refuge in Hong Kong, which has a better record of protecting free speech than the US government. Snowden did not trust any US news source and took the story to the British newspaper, the Guardian.

There is no longer any doubt whatsoever that the US government is lawless, that it regards the US Constitution as a scrap of paper, that it does not believe Americans have any rights other than those that the government tolerates at any point in time, and that the government has no fear of being held accountable by the weak and castrated US Congress, the sycophantic federal courts, a controlled media, and an insouciant public.

Binney and Snowden have described in precisely accurate detail the extreme danger from the government’s surveillance of the population. No one is exempt, not the Director of the CIA, US Army Generals, Senators and Representatives, not even the president himself.

Anyone with access to a computer and the Internet can find interviews with Binney and Snowden and become acquainted with why you do have very much indeed to fear whether or not you are doing anything wrong.

James Clapper, the lying Director of National Intelligence, who would have been perfectly at home in the Hitler or Stalin regimes, condemned Snowden as “reprehensible” for insisting that in a democracy the public should know what the government is doing. Clapper insisted that secretly spying on every ordinary American was essential in order to “protect our nation.”

Clapper is “offended” that Americans now know that the NSA is spying on the ordinary life of every American. Clapper wants Snowden to be severely punished for his “reckless disclosure” that the US government is totally violating the privacy that the US Constitution guarantees to every US citizen.

Read  More  Here

*******************************************************************************

The Transformation of Society

corbettreport corbettreport

Published on Jun 12, 2013

The US government has been violating the constituion and trampling on the bill of rights since virtually the inception of the country. The history of the US, like the history of every other country, is littered with the corpses of nice-sounding ideals, from false flag frame-ups to lead the nation into war to the persecution and even execution of political dissidents. But the point is that 50 years ago, America wanted to believe it was a nation of ideals, and many people did believe that. So what changed?…

******************************************************************************
By J.B. WilliamsJune 10, 2013

NewsWithViews.com

As the nation searches for the proper peaceful remedy to the crisis known as Obama, good people of good intentions often research a common subject and arrive at a different conclusion. Such has been the case on the topic of whether or not Barack Hussein Obama can be impeached.

In a WND column dated July 14, 2011 titled Why Obama Cannot be Impeached, the writer states, “Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.”

The author’s position is based upon statements from Dr. Edwin Vieira, a Harvard trained attorney, who’s works are focused primarily on land rights and militias. Dr. Vieira issued his position in a 2008 piece written and released before the 2008 election, Vieira suggests that once Obama takes office via fraud, he cannot be impeached, on the basis that impeaching a usurper of the office would somehow validate his tenure in office. Is he right?

To be sure, the Obama Crisis presents a highly unusual set of circumstances, rising to the level of constitutional crisis in a number of ways. The proper peaceful remedy is indeed worthy of research and debate. Only once the people agree on a proper course of action, can action be taken… so, it is imperative that the people reach agreement on this matter.

Who is right in the debate is much less important than reaching an actionable position of agreement. The endless debate on the subject only leaves all concerned citizens paralyzed by confusion and lack of coherent direction in how to solve the crisis.

It is for this reason that I have returned to historical data on the subject of impeachment in search of the foundations for impeachment remedies found in Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution.

“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” – Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution

I fully understand and even agree with the claim that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) gained access to the Office of President via massive fraud, including identity fraud, campaign fraud and campaign finance fraud, just for starters.

I further agree that Mr. Obama’s acts during his unconstitutional and illegal seizing of the Oval Office, as well as his unconstitutional acts while in office, rise to the level of impeachable offenses, high crimes, usurpations and likely even treason.

But I do not agree that Obama/Soetoro cannot be removed from office via impeachment. In fact, I believe that Obama can only be removed from office via impeachment. Here’s the basis for my belief…

James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment during the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton explained that “impeachment of the president should take place for offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

And indeed, in Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) explained: “The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of a political nature… What are aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

Common throughout historical references to the impeachment process is the concept that a violation or breach of public trust, or habitual disregard for the public interest is the fundamental definition of other high crimes and misdemeanors, as it relates to the Founders intended use of the impeachment clause found in Article II.

The legal debate over use of impeachment concerning immunity from criminal prosecutions of any individual occupying the Oval Office is covered quite extensively here. In conclusion, seizing the Oval Office by way of fraud, usurpations of the office, and acting in a manner at odds with public interests, constitutional authority or in breach of the public trust, are all impeachable offenses.

In Federalist Paper No. 70, Hamilton further explained: “Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious and subject to legal punishment.” – “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.”

In short, the Oval Office (not the individual occupying the office) has protections against criminal charges or prosecutions during the tenure of office, be it legitimate tenure or not.

“In 1973, the Justice Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.”Full legal reference here

This means that before any occupant of the Oval Office can be charged with or prosecuted for crimes, they must first be removed from office via impeachment, so that the business of the people can continue while the individual is being prosecuted for criminal activities.

Read Full Article Here

*******************************************************************************

Petition to Impeach Barack Hussein Obama

Fellowship of the Minds

impeach Obama

PETITION URGENTLY REQUESTING THAT  CONGRESS LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT AND  COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ON THE  PART OF  PRESIDENT  BARACK OBAMA

To: All members of the U.S. Congress:

Whereas, President Barack Obama not only failed to aid U.S. personnel under lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulting in the deaths of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but also led an outrageously deceitful cover-up for weeks afterward, rivaling the Watergate-era cover-up that ended the presidency of Richard Nixon;

Whereas, the IRS under Obama – in accord with direct instructions from congressional Democrats – has engaged in the most egregious and widespread attack on conservative groups in modern history, with the knowledge of top agency officials;

Whereas, the Obama Justice Department, on top of its many first-term scandals, has spied on and harassed journalists at Fox News and the Associated Press, prompting widespread, bipartisan condemnation of the DOJ for “criminalizing journalism”;

Whereas, top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors”;

Whereas, one of these offenses – that of illegally conducting war against Libya – has been deemed by a bipartisan panel of constitutional experts to be “clearly an impeachable offense” and “gross usurpation of the war power”;

Whereas, Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner – is unanimously deemed by experts, both liberal and conservative, as “an impeachable offense”;

Whereas, Obama’s Justice Department has presided over the disastrous “Fast and Furious” operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of as many as 100 people, including U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry – a scandal that constitutional experts agree constitutes, at a minimum, clear grounds for impeaching Attorney General Eric Holder;

Read More Here

*******************************************************************************

Why Isn’t the Murder of an American Boy an Impeachable Offense?

by Jacob Hornberger, FFF

Article 2, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In 1998, President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for matters arising out of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

If perjury and obstruction of justice constitute high crimes or misdemeanors, then doesn’t it seem rather obvious that the murder of an American citizen by the president would also constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, especially if the citizen is a child?

That’s precisely what President Obama, acting through U.S. national-security state agents, did on October 14, 2011. He murdered a 16-year-old American boy who was traveling in Yemen. The boy was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was the son of accused terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, who the CIA had assassinated two weeks before.

Why did President Obama and the CIA or the military kill Abdulrahman? The president, the CIA, and the Pentagon have all chosen to remain silent on the matter, refusing to even acknowledge that they killed the boy. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs implicitly provided the justification: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”

So, there you have it: the boy was apparently killed because he was considered to have the wrong father.

But if that’s a legitimate justification for killing a child, there are obviously a lot more children at risk in this country.

Proponents of the war on terrorism argue that the killing of the teenager wasn’t really a murder but rather an assassination. But isn’t that a distinction without a difference?

After all, compare Obama’s killing of Abdulrahman with Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s killing of Orlando Letelier. Pinochet took power in 1973, during the time that the Cold War and the war on communism were being waged. Pinochet, who the U.S. national-security state had helped install into power, not only began rounding up, incarcerating, torturing, abusing, and executing suspected communists without any judicial process, he also embarked on an program to assassinate Chilean communists found overseas.

Agents of Pinochet’s counterpart to the CIA, a secret police force called DINA, planned and orchestrated the killing of Orlando Letelier on the streets of Washington, D.C. Why was Letelier targeted for death? He was a socialist, a Chilean citizen who had served in the administration of President Salvador Allende, the democratically elected Marxist president whom Pinochet, President Richard Nixon, the CIA, and the U.S. military ousted from power and replaced with Pinochet’s military dictatorship. Therefore, as part of the war on communism, Letelier was considered to be a legitimate target for assassination.

On September 21, 1976, an assassination team headed by a man named Michael Townleyexploded a bomb that the team had planted under Letelier’s car. Letelier was killed, along with his American assistant who was also in the car, 25-year-old Ronni Moffitt.

Interestingly, the U.S. Justice Department did not consider the assassination to be legitimate under the concept of war and enemy combatants, notwithstanding the fact that the Cold War and global war on communism were still being waged. The Justice Department treated the killings of Letelier and Moffitt as murders. Townley and his team were indicted and prosecuted for the murders of Letelier and Moffitt.

How is Obama’s killing of Abdulrahman any different from Pinochet’s murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt? In the one case, a 16-year-old boy has had his life snuffed out because he had the wrong father. In the other case, a man had his life snuffed out because he had the wrong philosophical beliefs. Given that the Letelier and Moffitt killings were treated as murders, why shouldn’t the Abdulraham killing be treated as murder too?

Read More Here

*******************************************************************************

A  refresher for those who did  not  see the

Dianne Feinstein gets schooled on her own assault weapons Bill S150 at Judiciary Committee SH-216 Video

And  yet  the  Administration  continues  to  claim that   this  gun  control law is  solely  for the  protection of  our  children.  Yet  not once  have  they taken to  heart  the research and data presented  by members  of the  Judiciary   committee.  Simply  another  example  of  never  letting a  good  crisis  go to  waste……

~Desert Rose~
******************************************************************************

White House Freaks Out Over Online Petition To Charge Sen. Feinstein With Treason Reaching 50,000 Votes

Saturday, June 1, 2013 18:16

(Before It’s News)

One of the somewhat silly things that team Obama did when it came to office was to set up a website where Americans could float petitions filled with ideas and issues that they want Obama to address. Now, in theory this idea sounds great. But in practice, Obama just ignores all these things. But they do offer an interesting story from time to time.

A recent petition offers one of those stories. It is the petition to charge California Senator Dianne Feinstein with treason for her constant attacks on the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment in particular.

The strength of the petition has caused Obama to come to Feinstein’s defense. Ah, schadenfreude.

The anti-DiFi petition was created in December of last year and only five months later it had gained nearly 50,000 signatures. The fifty thousand mark is where Obama’s perpetual political campaign/White House staff have said that they will publicly address an issue directly.

The Petition

Here is the text of the petition:

Try Senator Dianne Feinstein in a Federal Court For Treason To The Constitution
The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

By the end of May the petition had 41,162 signatures. If you want to sign, see the petition HERE.
Read Full Article and  Watch  Video  here

 

Tyranny surrounds us.

It can be downright terrifying and morally decimating. Usurpations continue as rights are whittled away and the constitutional principles eroded. The demands on citizens and states from a supposedly “limited” and “defined” federal government are now innumerable . The Union looks more and more like a consolidation of states instead of a federal republic.

So, what do we do? What are the options to fight this reversal of the founder’s vision?

Political philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard contemplated this very question.

“We face the great strategic problem of all “radical” creeds throughout history: How can we get from here to there, from our current State-ridden and imperfect world to the great goal of liberty?”

Some Wacka-doo’s recommend taking up arms in resistance. Only death will result. The strongest and most heavily armed will ultimately earn the victory. Freedom cannot reign when the request for your volition is at the point of a gun.

So how about a good protest? We can march on D.C. We can carry poignant signs. Maybe we can sign a petition. But they don’t listen. And ultimately, aren’t we just begging the federal government for their acquiescence? Why ask permission where none is required?

Another option lies in hoping those black-robed federal employees at the Supreme Court will finally hand down an opinion limiting federal power in keeping with the intent of the founders. But somehow, throughout more than 200 years of American history, they’ve voted in favor of the federal government most of the time. And even if they do get one right, that doesn’t make us safe.  Judges can even overrule their OWN opinion! Heck, they don’t even have to listen to a case, just like they did with the NDAA this year! Is this your last hope? That’s not what the founders believed. The last arbiter of constitutionality is the people of the states, not nine black robed mystics of the Constitution.

Or, you can look for hero to save you.

Maybe if you just vote in the right guys, we can take back our country. I mean, why would this bum fail you? He has all the right qualifications! He’s that no-name stooge with a D or an R next to his name.

Look: we’ve tried all of this ad nauseum. Our political strategy brings to mind the definition of insanity often attributed to Albert Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. We’ve protested. They ignore us. We’ve voted the bums out. We get new bums. We counted on the courts. They failed us.

What can we do?

First and foremost, stop acting like a Disney Princess!

No one is coming to save you. The hero you are looking for…..is YOU!

Americans have broken and twisted the founders’ message. Those who formed this country preached liberty, self-government, decentralization and self-sufficiency within communities. Today, the federal government wants you to be dependent on them for everything. including your safety, your health care, the products you buy, the things you grow and the decisions you make.

Time to change that message.

Rothbard  pointed the way toward the path to liberty.

“On one point there can scarcely be disagreement: a prime and necessary condition for libertarian victory (or, indeed, for victory for any social movement, from Buddhism to vegetarianism) is education: the persuasion and conversion of large numbers of people to the cause.”

We’ve seen the power of everyday people getting involved at the grassroots during the recent gun debates.

Early this year, the Obama administration called for “common sense” gun laws to prevent another mass shooting after Sandy Hook. These “common sense” laws include banning so-called “assault rifles,” creating a national registration, minimizing magazine capacity, and even restricting collectable, antiquated firearms. The pure evil that caused the deaths of children and teachers was deplorable, but it shouldn’t be used as a tool to criminalize law abiding citizens.

As a preemptive tactic, the Second Amendment Preservation Act was introduced in 31 states in an effort to hold the federal government within its constitutionally prescribed role. Eleven states passed the act through one of its legislative chambers, while four pass it through both houses. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed the Second Amendment Preservation Act into law on April 16. Alaska and Missouri are expected to have their bills sent to their governors soon.

The Kansas bill had no easy journey, but with grassroots support, the bill made it all the way to the governor’s desk. He signed it without hesitation. And when U.S. Attorney General  Eric Holder threatened the state, Brownbacks’ response was simple and tactful.

The State of Kansas is in receipt of your letter in which you place Kansas on notice regarding the view of the Obama Administration concerning the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear. It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights. The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution”

In the wake of Kansas’ stand, local  action to nullify unconstitutional federal gun laws is spreading like wildfire in the state, as well as in Missouri, Colorado and even Alabama. In fact, many cities across the Union have introduced and passed local legislation. With enough resistance from cities, towns, counties, and states, federal gun control will become unenforceable. Through this effort, citizens in every locality are educating their communities and garnering support from sheriffs, representatives and neighbors.

 

Read More Here

******************************************************************************************

On January 16, 1919, the ratification of the 18th amendment was certified by the US Congress.  This amendment had been ratified by 46 of 48 states and said:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment on December 5, 1933.

Before I started researching for this article, what I thought I knew about the prohibition era went something like this:  The 18th amendment was passed.  Organized crime took over in New York and Chicago.  The mob thrived.  People danced “the Charleston”.  Al Capone got arrested for tax evasion.  And eventually the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st.  It occurred to me recently that learning more about prohibition era America might provide some useful lessons for today, so I have done some reading.  I am still far from expert on the period, but what I have learned so far is absolutely fascinating.

What strikes me most about prohibition and its repeal is that this is a familiar recipe.  NullifiersAmendmentsWe have seen how nullification helped pave the way to freedom for Pennsylvania’s black population during the 19th century.  Pennsylvania’s resistance to the federal fugitive slave acts spanned decades and included jury nullification, individual nullification in the form of the underground railroad, state-level nullification in the form of personal freedom acts, and electoral efforts at the national level, eventually culminating in the Civil War and the 13th amendment.

Similarly, the Whiskey Rebellion, consisted of a combination of jury nullification, individual nullification in the form of non-compliance, and organized nullification in the western counties of many of the states.  It came to fruition when Thomas Jefferson was elected President.  Jefferson appointed Pennsylvanian and accused whiskey rebel, Albert Gallatin, to be his Treasury Secretary and to oversee the repeal of the unpopular whiskey tax.

This article will demonstrate how the same basic template was used in order to bring about the 21st amendment.  Can the nullification deniers continue to bury their heads in the sand when nullification has played a role in not one, but two Constitutional amendments?  It’s sort-of hard to argue that nullification isn’t a valid part of the Constitutional process when there are two real, live, examples where nullification was part of the process that led up to a Constitutional amendment.

Was Prohibition Constitutional?

I am aware that this question seems almost nonsensical.  How could an amendment to the Constitution possibly be unconstitutional?  The thing to remember, though, is that prohibition involved more than just the 18th amendment.  After the amendment came federal legislation, and after that came interpretations by the Supreme Court.  I would invite you to look at section 1 of the amendment again.  What was actually prohibited by the amendment?  According to Last Call, the phrase “intoxicating liquors” was intentionally chosen in order to be misleading.

This conscious dodge had enabled fence-sitters, conflict avoiders, and wishful thinkers to support the amendment in the hope that the eventual definition would leave room for some of the milder forms of liquid stimulation.

When you see the word “liquor” in that amendment, does it include “beer”?  I don’t know what the language was in 1919, but to my understanding, beer, wine, and liquor are three different types of alcoholic drinks.  The amendment was enabled by the Volstead Act, which prohibited drinks with more than 0.5% alcohol, including beer and wine.  This is a classic bait and switch.  Is an agreement valid when it is made under intentionally false pretense? Jack S. Blocker, Jr. wrote in the Journal of the American Public Health Association,

The Volstead Act defined “intoxicating” as containing 0.5% or more alcohol by volume, thereby prohibiting virtually all alcoholic drinks.  The brewers, who had expected beer of moderate strength to remain legal, were stunned, but their efforts to overturn the definition were unavailing.

The Supreme Court’s decisions upheld Congress’ bait and switch and added on some power grabs of its own.  Section 2 of the amendment said that the federal government and the states had concurrent enforcement power.  According to Robert Post of Yale Law School, writing in the William and Mary Law Review, over the prohibition years, the supreme court modified its interpretations of the 4th, 5th, and 10th amendments in order to uphold the Volstead Act and interpret the enforcement power in the 18th amendment expansively.  The court allowed wiretaps without a warrant, allowed a person to be charged twice for the same crime under state and federal statutes, and allowed warrantless searches of motor vehicles – establishing the “reasonable suspicion” standard.

Post writes that Supreme Court Justice McReynolds sputtered in dissent to United States vs. Carroll:

Has it come about that merely because a man once agreed to deliver whisky, but did not, he may be arrested whenever thereafter he ventures to drive an automobile on the road to Detroit!”

And to that, political scientist Robert Cusman answered:

it certainly has, and … most of us are not sensitive enough to feel that such a result violates the requirements either of justice or of common sense.”Prohibition

Simplistically – the phrase concurrent enforcement could mean two things.  It could mean that the states enforce the law in their own spheres of influence – inside their borders; and the federal government enforces it in its sphere – interstate commerce and foreign trade.  This understanding would not have involved reinterpreting the Bill of Rights.

Post cites advocates as arguing,

the dual sovereignty in our federal system of Nation and State each supreme within its own sphere did not signify a merely functional division of labor between state and federal governments, but instead a fundamental constitutional commitment, symbolized by the Tenth Amendment, to maintain ‘state control over local affairs.’

Instead of accepting this argument, which would have left the Bill of Rights intact, the court interpreted it to mean that the federal government could enforce the amendment anywhere, including domains that had been reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.  Post goes on to say,

Read More Here

 

 

Image source

********************************************************************************************

Friday, 17 May 2013 09:22 PM


 

  • 0
    Share
Sheriffs of 54 Colorado counties sued Governor John Hickenlooper, challenging recently enacted state laws that ban ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds and require background checks for gun sales and loans.

The sheriffs, in a complaint filed today in federal court in Denver, said the ammunition law bans most magazines of any size in an attempt to prohibit those that can be converted to hold more than 15 rounds. They also alleged that compliance with the background checks will be practically impossible.

The effect of the ammunition law’s “various provisions is the widespread ban on functional firearms,” according to the complaint. “The prohibition of so many box and tube magazines of any size, and the prohibition of magazines greater than 15 rounds, directly and gravely harm the ability of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for lawful purposes, especially self- defense.”

The lawsuit is based on claims under the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms and due process.

Lawmakers in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and Maryland passed laws limiting firearms ownership after 20 children and six educators were shot to death Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

Read Full Article Here