Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Founding Fathers’

The Supreme Court of the United States. Washin...

First off, I fully disclose that I was born in Canada to non-American parents, and therefore am not qualified to be President, and I am willing to prove my credentials with a long-form birth certificate, unlike the current sitting President of the United States.

Contrary to the popular notion that the Founding Fathers were most concerned about an overreaching judiciary, all one needs to do is look at the Constitution that 39 of them signed to see that the qualifications for, and limitations on, the judicial branch, are the most narrow of the three branches of government.

Unlike the President of the United States, Supreme Court Justices aren’t required to be a natural born citizens. Nor for that matter, from a plain reading of the Constitution, are they even required to be U.S. citizens.

While the Constitution clearly places citizenship, residency, and age requirements on Representatives and Senators, no such requirements are specified for Supreme Court Justices.

Nor does the Constitution specify any maximum or minimum number of  Supreme Court Justices, unlike Representatives and Senators.

As one of your Supreme Court Justices, I swear to uphold all of the Constitution, and not just the parts I want to uphold, unlike most candidates for office in the United States.

For insight into my judicial philosophy, please check the archives of my site.

Read Full Post »

Obverse of the Great Seal of the United States.

Some point to the United States Code (USC) to claim that the United States is a federal corporation, and not a union of states as described in the original Constitution.

From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

If you look at the context of that definition, it becomes clear that it’s not saying that the United States is a federal corporation, but rather, it’s referring to federal corporations incorporated by the United States.

At the beginning of the section, it says: “As used in this chapter:

Therefore, the reference to the “United States” as “a federal corporation” is only applicable to Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176 of the United States Code.

Even within that limited context, it’s not referring to the United States as a federal corporation. If that was the intent, it would have been defined as “the United States, a Federal corporation.”

Looking at a different subchapter of the same chapter, namely, Subchapter D, Section 3306 (Remedies of the United States), (a):

(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to the United States;

If the meaning of  “(A) a Federal corporation” is substituted, we get:

(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to a Federal corporation.

Examples of United States federal corporations can be found here.

In my article, A Constitution for the United States of America or of the United States?, I show how the Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution drew no distinction between the two, despite the claim that the United States of America is a nation and the United States is a corporation.

Read Full Post »

Constitutional Convention, 1787

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the use of “Constitution for the United States of America” and not “Constitution of the United States.

From the Fourteenth Amendment’s mention of “Constitution of the United States,” it is argued that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was subverted in referring to a Constitution of the United States as a single entity, as opposed to a Constitution for the United States of America as a union of sovereign independent states.

However, if you look at the context, it’s specifically referring to the oath of office taken by all officers and legislative members of the States, and all officers and Congressional members of the United States, which includes the President of the United States.

From the original Constitution, the presidential oath or affirmation of office is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, it is clear from the Constitution that the Founding Fathers who signed it interchangeably referred to both a “Constitution for the United States of America” and a “Constitution of the United States,” without drawing any particular distinction between them.

Read Full Post »

Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking from the floor of the United States Senate on December 10, 2010, in decrying the recently announced compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts, said:

We have a job to do, and the job is — I know some people don’t believe it — a radical concept — our job is to represent working families and the middle class and not the wealthiest people in this country.

Senator Sanders, the reason why some people don’t “believe” that your job as a U.S. Senator is to represent a certain segment of society to the exclusion of some others is because the Constitution that delegated you and your fellow Senators the powers it did tells us who you are supposed to represent, and it doesn’t support your claim.

Until 1913, the Constitution provided for the appointment of Senators by state legislatures. The original intent of the Founding Fathers, as documented by the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, in Federalist Paper #62, as an example, was for the Senate to represent the interests of the States, and to act as a check against the federal government from acting outside of its “few and defined” powers.

Even with the direct election of Senators, the Constitution still prevents taking away equal representation of the States in the Senate without their consent.

In addition, the Senate still retains the delegated powers to ratify all treaties and confirm all federal executive appointments, and the sole power to try all impeachments of federal officers including the President and Vice President should they act outside the law, all within the context of equal state representation.

Senator Sanders, if you really want to represent working families and the middle class, while at the same time representing the interests of your state of Vermont, as you’re constitutionally mandated to do, then press for a full audit of the illegal Federal Reserve, which is the nexus of what you were referring to when you said:

You’re taking on the most powerful people in America. They make the oil industries and drug companies look like lightweights.

Read Full Post »

In this interview by Lew Rockwell, libertarian and intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella takes exception with Ayn Rand’s stance on intellectual property.

Starting at 11:11:

Rockwell: “Where did Rand go wrong?

If you didn’t believe that the U.S. Constitution’s view of patents and copyrights was exactly right, that you were a communist. But it seems to me she had very little argument for this.

Kinsella: “Her sort of religious adherence to the American scheme of government, which was almost perfect, in her mind.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, “Powers of Congress,” includes:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note that it says: “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” and not to promote bottom line of patent holders, many of which are corporations these days, unlike in 1787 when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.

The significance of that, to me, is that individuals are more likely to patent something out of their interest in profiting from their own creations, as opposed to those corporations that file new patents or buy existing ones to stymie progress.

Kinsella points out that Rand mistakenly believed that the person who first files for a patent gets it, whereas the U.S. is the only country that grants the patent to the first person to invent what is filed for.

However, that is only true in theory, as the 1984 patent for the fraudulent “HIV test” shows, which was granted to Robert Gallo of the National Institutes of Health, instead of the first test developer and patent filer, 2008 Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier, as documented in the 2003 book, Science Fictions. If you have enough sway with the Patent and Trademark Office, you’ll get your patent regardless of who the first inventor was.

Read Full Post »

On April 30, 2010, Dr. Stan Monteith of Radio Liberty interviewed Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Institute, and they analyzed the “10 Amendments For Freedom” proposal.

They are:

  • A balanced budget, repaying the national debt in 50 Years, government transparency, a line-item veto, term limits for Congress, controlling illegal immigration, formal declaration of being an English-speaking nation, no binding foreign laws, government restraint – no socialism, and an “In God We Trust” declaration.

The following concerns about a Constitutional Convention were raised, which I paraphrase here:

  • How likely are the same members of Congress who violated their constitutional oath of office by voting for unconstitutional legislation, such as the 2001 USA PATRIOT ACT and the 2006 Military Commissions Act, likely to respect new amendments to the Constitution?
  • The precedence of the 1787 Constitutional Convention that violated the existing Articles of Confederation, by adopting a new Constitution for the United States without the required ratification of every State, as required by the Articles. Despite requiring three-fourths of the States to ratify any proposed amendments under the existing Constitution, the ratification rules could once again be violated, citing this precedence.
  • The Speaker of the House, a partisan, would get to decide the rules for conducting the Convention, for those aspects that aren’t spelled out in Article V of the Constitution, which are numerous.
  • Phyllis Schafly, opponent of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, succeeded in her attempts to thwart the required three-fourths support of the States, in part, due to the roadblocks and legally questionable tactics employed by some state legislatures, including the rescission of previous ratification.
  • Bill Benson was given $100,000 to go to each of the State legislatures and determine whether a sufficient number of them ratified the 16th and 17th amendments, and he discovered they hadn’t. If the 16th and 17th amendments were never properly ratified, yet are being enforced by the nation’s courts, what will stop them from enforcing new amendment proposals that aren’t properly ratified?

Now, I’ll examine each of the proposed amendments in detail:

1. Balanced Budget
– Balanced budget legislation has been shelved by other countries, such as provincially in Canada, when their deficits skyrocketed, or when it was politically expedient to do so.

2. Repay National Debt in 50 Years
– Repaying the $14 trillion dollar debt in 50 years would take $280 billion a year in payments even at 0% interest over that time, requiring an additional $1.4 trillion in revenue for 2010 alone.

3. Government Transparency
– I argue that the best way to make government more transparent is to reduce its size and decentralize its power as much as possible without compromising its intended function of protecting rights.

4. Line-Item Veto
– For historical reference, a line item veto was made law in 1996, but was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court and the ruling later upheld by the Supreme Court.

5. Term Limits for Congress
– Terms limits were included in the Republican’s 1994 Contract With America, but never passed the House with the required two-thirds support.

6. Control Illegal Immigration
– There are existing laws to control illegal immigration that are being deliberately unenforced by both Democrats and Republicans, with the example of proposed amnesty legislation during the Bush and Obama administrations, after Democratic and Republican administrations following the latest amnesty by Reagan.

7. English-Speaking Nation
– I argue that English’s place in the United States is secure, by being the language of the Constitution — the supreme law of the land, which requires that all federal and state laws be in support of. Such an amendment could breach the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech.

8. No Foreign Laws Will Bind Us
– This would fix what I see as a problem with the Constitution not explicitly requiring that Treaties be in support of the Constitution, as it says about all laws. Given the Vienna Convention, which holds that where there is a difference between national laws and treaty provisions, treaty provisions can be held superior to any national and state laws.

9. Government Restraint – No Socialism
– Much of the socialist agenda being pushed at the federal level today is being carried out through the misapplication the commerce clause, which was clearly intended by the Founding Fathers, as outlined in the Federalist Papers, to apply to regulation of trade among the several States, and not permit unfettered socialism by controlling the means of production and distribution. An example of this is the regulation of CO2 emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency. Without such a misapplication, the Tenth Amendment reserves such powers to the States or to the people.

10. In God We Trust
– Could breach the First Amendment protection of the freedom to practice no religion. Also, despite the religious character of many of the Founding Fathers, they intentionally made no direct reference to God in the Constitution, and, as such, such an amendment would be contrary to their intentions of discouraging the influence of religious sectarianism in such a religiously diverse country as the U.S. was even in 1787.

Read Full Post »

The first step in my health care reform plan is simply this: recognizing that health care is not a right.

How can I be so cruel as to say that? How can anyone be so cruel as to say otherwise?

To say that health care is a right means that you have a right to someone else’s labour. Do others have a right to your labour, or is your labour your own, to use it as you see fit?

Communism is a system that holds that some have the right to the labour of others. Communism co-founder, Karl Marx, stated in 1875: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I understand the well-meaning intentions of those who say that health care is, and should be, a right. However, a right is an entitlement. How can you be entitled to the work of a doctor, a nurse, or any other health professional, as a matter of birth?

If health care truly was a right, then that was quite the oversight by the Founding Fathers of the United States, in not including it in the Bill of Rights in 1789. But it wasn’t an oversight. They recognized that it wasn’t a right.

The consequence of recognizing that health care is not a right, I believe, is to put the focus back where it properly belongs, as to who is ultimately responsible for their own health — the individual. There are those who are unable to properly care for themselves, as there has been since the dawn of time. Those people should be appropriately cared for, as matter of public interest, not as a matter of right, as well as all others. But just because it’s in the public interest to take care of all individuals, doesn’t make it a right, nor necessitate the method of care.

These days, health care is often taken to mean expensive diagnostic equipment, treatment with expensive drugs, expensive private health care plans with high overhead, and unsustainable government health plans, such as Medicare, which, as I previously documented, cost 744% more by 1990 than previously estimated at its inception, in 1965.

Modern health care has regressed from the basic principles of the father of modern medicine, Hippocrates, who stated: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.

Instead of a proactive, preventative approach to health by the individual, the focus has regressed to a reactive, expensive third-party approach, and this must change.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »