Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘federal’

On the October 10, 2015 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, I covered the following issues:

A unique analysis of the upcoming October 19, 2015 Canadian federal election, with a focus on foreign policy and election stunts. I also talk about health care and Uber.

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 »

No GMOMilton Friedman was right to draw our attention to the failings and detrimental effects of government regulation of our health, in the increasing absence of our own awareness and self-responsibility, especially with regards to unconstitutional federal regulation by the FDA. Why is it unconstitutional? Because the federal government was constituted with very limited functions, while those dealing with life, liberty and property were left to the States, which are closer to the people.

It’s far easier for big agri-business and big-Pharma to control one federal government regulator than it is for 50 different regulators.

This article describes eight foods that government regulators didn’t protect you from, which some food exports won’t even eat. They are:

Canned tomatoes, corn-fed beef, microwave popcorn, non-organic potatoes, farmed salmon, milk with artificial hormones, GMO unfermented soy and non-organic apples.

Read Full Post »

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Bob Kincaid, “America’s only born and bred Southern liberal talk show host,” said the following on his December 29, 2011 Head On broadcast (starting at 46:48):

Just to go back to crazy old Ron Paul for a minute, Jim. I saw a story earlier today where — now they’ve scrubbed it from the Ron Paul website — but he was very proud to receive the endorsement of a fundamentalist preacher, who wants to, um, there’s no other way to say it, who wants to bring in capital punishment for anyone found to be gay. Ron Paul got his endorsement. That thinking is out there. And he says, well you know, it’ll take us a while to do it, but I believe we can; Gotta start somewhere.

Ron Paul has said since the 2008 campaign, he no longer supports the death penalty in federal cases, so that preacher wasted his endorsement if he expects a supporter in the White House.

If the preacher expects Ron Paul to extend the federal government into state issues, he needs to read my articleDr. Stan Monteith explains the limited role of the federal government that few Christian evangelicals seem to get.

As for the constitutionality of the death penalty, see my article, The death penalty is explicitly constitutional in the United States. Whether the death penalty is a potential penalty for certain federal crimes is separate from whether they will be sought in particular cases, and whether Ron Paul will use the constitutional authority of the President to grant clemency in such cases.

For more on Ron Paul, see my articles:
1) FreedomWorks front-man says he thinks Ron Paul’s role isn’t to win the 2012 presidential race
2) Ron Paul right on health care: it’s not a right and it’s not a privilege. It’s a good.
3) Will Ron Paul throw 9/11 Truth under the bus again, like he did in 2008?

Read Full Post »

U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) that:

There is no federal general common law.

Article III, Section 2 of the original Constitution stated:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

The distinction between “Law” and “the Laws of the United States” shows that the former is referring to common law, while the latter is referring to Acts of Congress. Therefore, the original Constitution recognized the pre-existence of common law, and that it was within the purview of U.S. courts to shape, including federal courts.

The phrase “common law” isn’t explicitly referenced in the original Constitution; It is mentioned in the Seventh Amendment, which states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The Seventh Amendment recognized a pre-existent “right” of trial by jury, which is part of the common law firmly established with the Magna Carta of 1215 — further demonstrating that common law was pre-existent to the U.S. Constitution, and the government it created.

Article I, Section 8, clause 17 grants Congress the power:

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,

Lawful Acts of Congress can override certain common law provisions in the limited area of present-day Washington, D.C., but the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over that area didn’t mean that common law never applied there.

If common law never applied there, then why should common law have applied in any of the several States? We know that common law did apply in the several States, and, therefore, common law always did, and still does apply to Washington, D.C.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Despite the later incorporation of the First Amendment against the States with the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment couldn’t be more clear that it was only intended to restrict Congress and not the courts or State legislatures.

If no federal general common law ever existed, then Washington, D.C. was lawless until the first Act of Congress was passed. Does it make sense that murder wasn’t unlawful in Washington, D.C. until Congress made it unlawful?

And does it make sense that the common law right of quiet enjoyment of real property has never applied there? The implication of that and the First Amendment is that D.C. residents don’t have the right of peaceful enjoyment of their property, since Congress is prohibited from restricting peaceful, but noisy assembly.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the original Constitution states that:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Are we to assume that the Framers of the Constitution had it in their minds that there would be no habeas corpus protection in Washington, D.C. unless Congress granted it by an Act of Congress?

Therefore, regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court took 149 years to decide in their 6-2 split decision in 1938, general federal common law did exist, and still does exist.

Read Full Post »

Ballot box

After the last federal election, the defeated incumbent candidate in my riding had a deceptive slogan on his website calling for voters to “Re-elect” him, a full year after his defeat.

I noticed this morning that his campaign signs say, “Elect” and his website says, “Vote [for].” Funny how he changed his deceptive slogan, giving the impression he was the incumbent candidate, ever since he became a registered candidate after his defeat.

There are legal requirements regarding claims made on all election-related material, which is why I suspect the deceptive material was changed.

Thanks to archive.org, my recollection was reaffirmed showing the deceptive slogan on February 11, 2009.

Read Full Post »

Arms of Canada

From the elections.ca Handbook for Nomination Contestants, Their Financial Agents and Auditors:

Contribution limits

Any individual who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada may make these contributions:

up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party
up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party
up to $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who does not represent a registered political party
up to $1,000 in total to the contestants in a particular leadership contest
[405(1)]

Yet, when it comes to voting requirements, you have to be a Canadian citizen:

You are entitled to vote in federal elections and referendums if you are a Canadian citizen, and will be 18 or older on polling day.

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