Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘constitutional’

Dr. Edwin Vieira, author of The Sword and Sovereignty, was on the Power Hour with Joyce Riley on July 28, 2014, and provided an excellent and concise explanation of “a well-regulated Militia,” with reference to the United States and its Constitution.

– The Department of Homeland Security is unconstitutional
– A “well-regulated Militia” means statutory authorization and regulation by the several States, and doesn’t include privately-run militias
– The definition of Militia is best expressed by the Constitution of Virginia, which is the whole body of the people
– Exemptions could be given to most for completing a first-aid course, for example
– Women originally not part of the Militia because they were not legally emancipated, but would now be considered part of the Militia
– Age restrictions in place (originally up to 44 years old) in the 1700s before modern medicine could alleviate these conditions, and modern society allows individuals to serve in other capacities, like office work
– The National Guard isn’t a Militia, with the proof being that there is no notice given to all citizens to participate in it
– The Militia is intended to “execute the laws of the Union,” meaning that there is to be no federal agencies that perform a police or para-military function outside of the Militia
– Police abuses could be kept in check by the Militia, which is composed of the body of the people
– Constitutional Militias could be brought in any time — the only thing stopping that is the political class and a lack of citizen demand for them from State officials

Read Full Post »

U.S. ConstitutionThe no double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

The double jeopardy “loophole” is this; that where the accused is acquitted of a state crime, he/she is then tried for the same federal crime, and vice-versa.

The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to only limit the newly-created federal government, and not the States. Then, subsequent to the American Civil War, parts of the Bill of Rights have been progressively incorporated against the States.

It wasn’t that the principles of the Bill of Rights shouldn’t apply to the States, but the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to them for two main reasons:

1) Most of the States already had similar bills.

2) A federal Bill of Rights would be used to federalize the application of the Bill of Rights, which could lead to bad decisions applying to the entire country and subvert the federal design of the government, with the States sovereign within their respective jurisdictions.

Therefore, by original design, this “loophole” wasn’t a loophole because the federal government understood that it had no power to define and prosecute crimes that were completely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States.

Where it became a problem and a loophole, was when the federal government stepped beyond its constitutional bounds and defined crimes that it had no valid constitutional basis for doing so.

The few and defined federal crimes in the Constitution are treason, piracy, counterfeiting and crimes against the laws of nations.

I don’t share the view of some that Congress had no power to define additional laws.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

This gave Congress the power to define any crimes it wanted that would apply to this District.

Outside of that District, I argue that Congress still has the power to define additional crimes. For example, crimes relating to its power to coin money. And we see from the 1792 Coinage Act, that death was the penalty for debasing the currency.

This is further evidenced by Article II, Section 4, which states:

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.

The mention of “other high Crimes” implies that Congress can define and punish other “high Crimes”, not only within the District, but outside, because of the mention of “all civil Officers”.

But, the restriction upon defining new crimes is whether it relates to what is “necessary and proper” for carrying out Congress’ 18 enumerated powers.

Therefore, federal “crimes” relating to cross-state drug “offences”, cross-state “terrorism” “offences”, etc., are completely invalid, and this is where the double jeopardy loophole applies.

How to deal with the federal government going beyond its constitutional boundaries in defining and punishing non-crimes? The States should nullify them by preventing state officials from providing any support or co-operation for the prosecution of these federal non-crimes.

Read Full Post »

I saw that Tom Woods plans to have former Reagan administration official David Stockman on his January 2, 2014 podcast — the same man who agreed with Bill Maher that “the Second Amendment is bullsh*t”.

He said he wouldn’t have “money cranks” on his show, in reference to “Greenbackers”, yet he has no problem promoting a debate between Austrian economist Bob Murphy and Keynesian economist Paul Krugman, and now having Second Amendment enemy David Stockman on his show.

Here was my comment:

Dr. Woods, you said you wouldn’t have “monetary cranks” on your show, but why are you planning to have a “constitutional crank” and “statist crank” like Stockman who agreed with Bill Maher on his April 12th Real Time show that “the Second Amendment is bullsh*t”, and said, “why would you believe that an 18th century citizen militia, equipped with the equivalent of muskets, has anything to do with liberty?” and “the only way we protect liberty is with the ballot box”?

For more on Tom Woods, see my article, Tom Woods had no time for a Bitcoin conference, yet had time to misrepresent government-issued currencies., and When will Austrian school supporter Tom Woods debate voluntary, interest-free currency reformer Anthony Migchels?

Read Full Post »

Peter DuesbergOn the August 25, 2013 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb on Truth Frequency Radio, I interviewed Dr. Peter Duesberg.

Hour 1: Interview with Dr. Peter Duesberg, the most prominent critic of the 20+-year AIDS scam. See here for the edited archive for this interview.

Hour 2: Constitutional credit, redefinition of usury, payday lender criminal interest charges under colour of law.

Read Full Post »

The Fifteen Steps to Corporate FeudalismI arranged the July 31, 2012 interview with Dennis Marker, author of Fifteen Steps to Corporate Feudalism, on Dr. Stan Monteith’s Radio Liberty (available for a limited time).

Dr. Stan differed with Marker on several points, as I do, including his use of the word democracy instead of republic, and his support for federal government spending beyond its originalist constitutional boundaries.

Overall, Dr. Stan agreed with most of Marker’s points, as I do.

For my July 15, 2012 interview with Marker, see here.

I previously arranged interviews for Dr. Walter Block and Dr. Peter Duesberg.

Read Full Post »

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-KY).

Senator Rand Paul’s June 7, 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney for President in 2012 came as no surprise to me, as I predicted as far back as 2009 that he wouldn’t be a constitutional candidate for the U.S. Senate, and my unpopular prediction was further vindicated with this endorsement, so why are so many others surprised by his decision?

On December 31, 2010, I wrote the article, The U.S. Senate regularly violates the law, about my shocking discovery that U.S. Senators were regularly conducting business and passing legislation without the constitutionally mandated quorum of a majority of Senators in order to conduct business.

In it, I responded with a January 9, 2011 comment about my assessment of Senator Rand Paul:

If Rand doesn’t know about that requirement and his duty regarding it, then he’s already no constitutional candidate in my books.

I stopped regarding him as a constitutional candidate once he came out with this November 2009 press release:

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

If you read his words carefully, there is the possibility that it was a clever attempt to fool “law and order” conservatives into voting for him, so long as he has accepted being a one-term Senator in actually standing for the Constitution in this matter.

However, I suspect he meant it the way I first read it, whereby he regards the Constitution and Bill of Rights irrelevant to foreign “terrorists,” despite the Constitution being a contract between the people and their government, which defined the government’s powers and limits, including its dealings with foreigners.

Read Full Post »

Edwin VieiraDr. Edwin Vieira, who is touted in the libertarian community as a constitutional authority on money and is a holder of four degrees — including a PhD and JD from Harvard — should know better about what the U.S. Constitution says about legal tender.

In his 2011 presentation, “What is Constitutional Money?,” he says, in reference to Article 1, Section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution regarding the States (at 13:57):

There’s a reserve power and actually a duty to make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

That clause says that no State shall “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

From the context of the entire clause, it is clear that it is saying what is prohibited to the States. Therefore, to say that they shall not make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts is to say that if they choose to exercise their power of enacting legal tender laws, then they are required to make only gold and silver coins a tender in payment of debts.

The same clause allows restricts the States from imposing duties on imports and exports, unless they have the permission of Congress. Therefore, if they do have such permission, then they can do what is permitted, and in the case of legal tender laws, they are permitted to enact them, and then and only then are they required to make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

I give a further analysis of this clause in my article, The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury