I was not sure where to put this. The point it makes for me is how far the European mind has gone down the nanny state path. This is just NUTS!!!!!
Italian scientists who failed to predict L'Aquila earthquake may face manslaughter charges June 24, 2010 by Lisa Zyga
(PhysOrg.com) -- Six of Italy's top seismologists are being investigated for manslaughter for not warning the city of L'Aquila about an earthquake that struck on April 6, 2009. The magnitude-6.3 earthquake caused 308 deaths and 1600 injuries, and left more than 65,000 people homeless.
The L’Aquila public prosecutor’s office issued the indictments on June 3, a step that usually precedes a request for a court trial. The investigation originated when about 30 L’Aquila citizens registered an official complaint that the scientists had failed to recognize the danger of the earthquake during the days and weeks in advance. In the six months leading up to the earthquake, a series of smaller seismic movements and tremors were recorded nearby, including a magnitude-4.0 earthquake on March 30. On March 31, six days before the large earthquake struck, Italy’s Civil Protection Agency held a meeting with the Major Risks Committee - composed of the six scientists - to assess the risk of a major earthquake. At that time, the committee concluded that there was "no reason to suppose a sequence of small earthquakes could be the prelude to a strong event" and that “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out." At a press conference after the meeting, government official Bernardo De Bernardinis, deputy technical head of the Civil Protection Agency, told reporters that "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable.” In addition to the six scientists, De Bernardinis is also under investigation. According to the group of local citizens, many of the earthquake’s victims had been planning to leave their homes, but had changed their minds after the committee’s statements. "Those responsible are people who should have given different answers to the public,” said Alfredo Rossini, L'Aquila's public prosecutor. “We're not talking about the lack of an alarm, the alarm came with the movements of the ground. We're talking about the lack of advice telling people to leave their homes." Minutes from the March 31 meeting show that the scientists recommended that buildings in the area should be monitored to assess their ability to handle a major shock. Although the scientists are unable to comment due to the investigation, an article in Nature News reported that one of the scientists, Enzo Boschi, president of the National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology (INGV) in Rome, wrote in a letter last September that the meeting was too short and that he had not been informed about the following press conference. Only one of the seismologists from the committee, Franco Barberi, a volcanologist at the University of Roma Tre, was at the press conference.
Simple but Brilliant and full of truths! Enjoy! Will Rogers, who died in a 1935 plane crash with his best friend, Wylie Post, was probably the greatest political sage this country ever has known. 1. Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco. 2. Never kick a cow chip on a hot day. 3.. There are two theories to arguing with a woman . . Neither works. 4. Never miss a good chance to shut up. 5. Always drink upstream from the herd. 6. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. 7. The quickest way to double your money is to fold it and put it back into your pocket. 8. There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. 9. Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. 10. If you're riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there. 11. Lettin' the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier'n puttin' it back. 12. After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
"The dons, the bashaws, the grandees, the patricians, the sachems, the nabobs, call them by what names you please, sigh and groan and fret, and sometimes stamp and foam and curse, but all in vain. The decree is gone forth, and it cannot be recalled, that a more equal liberty than has prevailed in other parts of the earth must be established in America." --John Adams, letter to Patrick Henry, 1776
"The people of the U.S. owe their Independence & their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings." --James Madison
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
James Madison, National Gazette Essay, March 27, 1792
Ran across this goes to original intent discussed in the current conversation.
Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Obamacare by Jim Delaney, New York Tenth Amendment Center
Having culled through reams of often esoteric judicial analyses and rulings since ratification of the Constitution in 1787, the inescapable conclusion is that over the years the Supreme Court, Congress and the Executive have egregiously misinterpreted and progressively broadened the original and intentionally narrow meaning the Framers attached to both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause. And therein lies the problem: liberal misinterpretation of these clauses has provided the national government the means to extend federal jurisdiction and control far beyond the Framers’ original intent and purpose.
Obamacare’s “individual mandate” has once again put Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause, front and center. And like all things Constitutional these days, even a casual observer can readily see that over the years the courts and the politicians have managed to grossly distort–indeed violate–the original meaning, intent and spirit of this clause by a litany of tortured legal argumentation and capricious social engineering justifications.
To begin with, the Commerce Clause states that the United States Congress shall have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Not surprisingly, when linked with Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 18, aka the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government empowers itself to further and irresponsibly expand the original scope of the Commerce Clause
By way of background, as a direct result of the Founders’ unsettling experience with the Articles of Confederation, the Framers understood the practical need to better ensure uniformity in interstate commerce, that is to say the unencumbered “trade or exchange” of goods among the states, this in order to achieve efficient interstate commercial intercourse free of state-imposed discriminatory and retaliatory restrictions such as duties which if left unchecked could well have led to the collapse of the union itself.
As James Madison counseled, “[the federal regulation of commerce] is necessary to preserve the Union, for “without [such regulation], the Union will infallibly crumble to pieces.” Therefore, as nearly as I can deduce this effort at achieving uniformity was intended to reduce, minimize, or altogether eliminate needless and onerous state-mandated barriers and petty regulations which served to deleteriously impede the free and efficient trade or exchange of goods among the states. Period.
It is important to note that the extent of congressional jurisdiction over interstate commerce may be easily found in Clauses 5 and 9 of Art 1, Sec 9:
Clause 5: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state.”
Clause 6: “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Clearly, the emphasis is on interstate duties and revenues, not upon the articles/goods traded or produced. Thus, as originally understood the power to regulate interstate trade did not mean the authority to prohibit, nor did it in any way imply the power to impose penalties for violations of the Commerce Clause.
Important to note too is that the Necessary and Proper Clause, a clause much exploited by progressives over the years, was in no way intended by the Framers to permit the federal government to assume any authority outside its clearly defined enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8. Simply put, our wise Framers were careful not to permit an ends justifies the means scenario. To wit, in John Marshall’s discussion of McCulloch v Maryland, he clearly drew a distinction between the proper definition of “necessary” as meaning “indispensably requisite” versus the improper definition being that of “convenient”. In other words, the federal government could not arrogate unto itself any extraordinary implementing power other than that which was clearly “indispensably requisite” in order to execute its clearly defined enumerated powers, in this case to regulate interstate commerce. In truth, a cursory examination of case law since ratification of the Constitution demonstrates how the proper definition has often been ignored, misconstrued or grossly misinterpreted by an overweaning Congress and an enabling gaggle of misguided or politically activist jurists over the years.
Having scanned applicable Federalist papers and Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, the latter which guided the Framers in their choice and meaning of words, it is obvious that the Constitutional meaning of “commerce” was limited to the trafficking and exchange of goods between the states from one port to another, and not at all to the regulation of INTRAstate production, manufacturing, sale, or the quality of goods/articles; that, therefore, the central and sole purpose of the Commerce Clause was to affirmatively prevent the confusing, conflicting and disorderly imposition of duties among the states. Nothing more.
Even casual examination of founding documents underscores our Framers’ clear understanding that “regulate” in 1787 meant “to make regular or normal” or “to remove impediments” to the free flow/transportation of interstate commerce. Again, it manifestly did not mean federal control or the federal imposition of regulations over the intrastate production of goods and services.
Significantly, the US v E.C. Knight Co. ruling in 1895, aka the Sugar Trust Case, asserted the states’ sphere of power in matters of commerce thusly:
1. Production is always local, and under the exclusive domain of the states 2. Commerce among the states (interstate commerce) does not begin until goods commence their final movement from their state of origin to that of their destination. 3. The sale of any product is merely an incident of its production and is therefore under the domain of the state because its effect on interstate commerce is merely incidental. 4. Combinations or associations organized for the sale and distribution of goods are under the regulatory power of the state since the effect on interstate commerce is indirect, not direct.
Can’t get clearer than that. The ruling upheld and sharply emphasized the core restraints on federal power as intended by the 10th Amendment.
Following passage of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 which created the Interstate Commerce Commission, the latter which was principally intended to check railroad abuse and discrimination, the level of federal usurpation which ensued has been nothing short of mind-boggling–almost laughable if it weren’t so utterly unconstitutional. (For example, I learned that the hapless hamburger is now subject to no fewer than 41,000+ state and federal regulations, covering everything from meat production, grazing practices of cattle, conditions in the slaughterhouse, processing methods, sales to retailers, restaurants and fast-food outlets. Ketchup is another example of regulatory overreach: to be considered Grade A, it must flow no more than 9 centimeters in 30 seconds at 69 degrees Fahrenheit. Progressive insanity!)
Though Congress has cited the Commerce Clause to justify its healthcare usurpation, logic and an objective analysis of original intent clearly demonstrate that individual mandates are woefully unconstitutional. But to myopic and progressive “living constitution” adherents who care little about the original meaning of the Constitution, or, frankly, the Constitution in any of its original form, Obamacare is merely another whimsicalnecessary and proper expansion of the federal government’s implied vs enumerated powers. Where are our Founders when they are so sorely needed?! Where are our uncorrupted constitutional scholars and jurists?!
Get the New Book Today!
With particular respect to Obamacare, I couldn’t find one single court ruling in the history of the United States which remotely endorsed the right of the federal government to mandate that every person purchase a product or service or be fined for not doing so. Not one! And though it’s difficult to imagine that even a liberal Supreme Court could clear-headedly and in good conscience rule in favor of this mandate, I wouldn’t underestimate the corrosive influence of judicial activism and congressional overreach which have characterized the rule of law in these United States over the last 100 years. And should the Supreme Court uphold Obamacare, which is more likely than not, then Americans must carefully recall and take to heart these words in the Declaration of Independence: “…But when the long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government [or abusive power], and to provide new guards for their future security.” Amen to that!
So, if the courts fail to restore constitutional governance, and the chances are better than even they won’t, what’s the answer to this unrestrained federal overreach? Very simply, we must take action to restore the sovereignty of “we the people”!!! Our merely waiting for the next election to throw the bums out and to replace them with what will likely be only slightly less progressively tainted legislators sounds good, but will accomplish nothing. Inescapably, state nullification action–with teeth–in combination with widespread civil disobedience are most likely the only way to restore constitutional order. It’s now or never…
(“…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; where powers are assumed by the federal government which have not been delegated by the Constitution, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” James Madison, & Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions, 1798)
(“The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law.” Thomas Jefferson, ltr to Albert Gallatin, 1808)
(“The court will almost assuredly resort to the great defense shield of denial known as ’stare decisis’ as a clever way of protecting the courts own judicial malpractice from scrutiny while at the same time leaving its vast centralization of power in Congress intact.” P.A. Madison, Federalist Blog, 2010)
Jim Delaney writes for the New York Tenth Amendment Center from Rochester-Greece, and maintains the blog, Opinerlog.
This is a drive by posting, I have not read everything in this conversation so maybe making a point which has been made before. The difference between God given rights and government given come down to this, if the rights come from gov't then gov't can take them away. If they come from God then they are intrinsic," inalienable", and no one can take them away.
"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787
"Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." --George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826
“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers." --John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties, and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates ... to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them." --John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Just knowing there is an interaction could lead to some good medical breakthroughs. I would like to do without the worms....the yuck factor alone.......
How the parasitic worm has turned June 14, 2010 (PhysOrg.com) -- Parasites in the gut such as whipworm have an essential role in developing a healthy immune system, University of Manchester scientists have found.
It has long been known that microbes in the gut help to develop a healthy immune system, hence the rise in popularity of probiotic yoghurts that encourage 'friendly' bacteria. But new research by Professors Richard Grencis and Ian Roberts shows that larger organisms such as parasitic worms are also essential in maintaining our bodily 'ecosystem'. Professor Roberts, whose work is published in Science, explains: "It is like a three-legged stool - the microbes, worms and immune system regulate each other. "The worms have been with us throughout our evolution and their presence, along with bacteria, in the ecosystem of the gut is important in the development of a functional immune system." Professor Grencis adds: "If you look at the incidence of parasitic worm infection and compare it to the incidence of auto-immune disease and allergy, where the body's immune system over-reacts and causes damage, they have little overlap. Clean places in the West, where parasites are eradicated, see problems caused by overactive immune systems. In the developing world, there is more parasitic worm infection but less auto-immune and allergic problems. "We are not suggesting that people deliberately infect themselves with parasitic worms but we are saying that these larger pathogens make things that help our immune system. We have evolved with both the bugs and the worms and there are consequences of that interaction, so they are important to the development of our immune system." Whipworm, also known as Trichuris, is a very common type of parasitic worm and infects many species of animals including millions of humans. It has also been with us and animals throughout evolution. The parasites live in the large intestine, the very site containing the bulk of the intestinal bacteria. Ads by Google Kill Skin Parasites Now - Stop the Itching, Biting & Stinging Kill Parasites & Heal the Sores. - Shop.QBased.com/Skin-Parasites
Heavy infections of whipworm can cause bloody diarrhoea, with long-standing blood loss leading to iron-deficiency anaemia, and even rectal prolapse. But light infections have relatively few symptoms. Professors Grencis and Roberts and their team at Manchester's Faculty of Life Sciences investigated the establishment of Trichuris and found it is initiated by an interaction between gut bacteria and the parasite. They further found that a broad range of gut bacteria were able to induce parasite hatching. In the case of Escherichia coli (E-coli), bacteria bound to specific sites on the egg and rapidly induce parasite hatching. With E-coli, hatching involved specific bacterial cell-surface structures known as fimbriae, which the bacteria normally use to attach to cells of the gut wall. Importantly, the work also showed that the presence of worms and bacteria altered the immune responses in a way that is likely to protect ourselves, the bacteria and the worms. Intestinal roundworm parasites are one of the most common types of infection worldwide, although in humans increased hygiene has reduced infection in many countries. High level infections by these parasites can cause disease, but the natural situation is the presence of relatively low levels of infection. The team's work suggests that in addition to bacterial microflora, the natural state of affairs of our intestines may well be the presence of larger organisms, the parasitic roundworms, and that complex and subtle interactions between these different types of organism have evolved to provide an efficient and beneficial ecosystem for all concerned. Professor Roberts says: "The host uses its immune system to regulate the damage caused by the bacteria and the worms. If the pathogens are missing, the immune system may not give the right response." Professor Grencis adds: "The gut and its inhabitants should be considered a complex ecosystem, not only involving bacteria but also parasites, not just sitting together but interacting." More information: 'Exploitation of the Intestinal Microflora by the Parasitic Nematode Trichuris muris', Science. Provided by University of Manchester (news : web)
"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others." --Alexander Hamilton
1st rule of self defense......be aware of your surroundings. May not have helped but I bet it would have......... This is the type of story that will work against Texas open carry or any pro gun carry law, very frustrating.
"Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787
“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.” –Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800
My family owns land where one of these raids came through, it still resonates. This is the history people don't know. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAN OF SAN DIEGO. With the outbreak of revolution in northern Mexico in 1910, federal authorities and officials of the state of Texas feared that the violence and disorder might spill over into the Rio Grande valley. The Mexican and Mexican-American populations residing in the Valley far outnumbered the Anglo population. Many Valley residents either had relatives living in areas of Mexico affected by revolutionary activity or aided the various revolutionary factions in Mexico. The revolution caused an influx of political refugees and illegal immigrants into the border region, politicizing the Valley population and disturbing the traditional politics of the region. Some radical elements saw the Mexican Revolution as an opportunity to bring about drastic political and economic changes in South Texas. The most extreme example of this was a movement supporting the "Plan of San Diego," a revolutionary manifesto supposedly written and signed at the South Texas town of San Diego on January 6, 1915. The plan, actually drafted in a jail in Monterrey, Nuevo León, provided for the formation of a "Liberating Army of Races and Peoples," to be made up of Mexican Americans, African Americans, and Japanese, to "free" the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado from United States control. The liberated states would be organized into an independent republic, which might later seek annexation to Mexico. There would be a no-quarter race war, with summary execution of all white males over the age of sixteen. The revolution was to begin on February 20, 1915. Federal and state officials found a copy of the plan when local authorities in McAllen, Texas, arrested Basilio Ramos, Jr., one of the leaders of the plot, on January 24, 1915.
The arrival of February 20 produced only another revolutionary manifesto, rather than the promised insurrection. Similar to the original plan, this second Plan of San Diego emphasized the "liberation" of the proletariat and focused on Texas, where a "social republic" would be established to serve as a base for spreading the revolution throughout the southwestern United States. Indians were also to be enlisted in the cause. But with no signs of revolutionary activity, state and federal authorities dismissed the plan as one more example of the revolutionary rhetoric that flourished along the border. This feeling of complacency was shattered in July 1915 with a series of raids in the lower Rio Grande valley connected with the Plan of San Diego. These raids were led by two adherents of Venustiano Carranza, revolutionary general, and Aniceto Pizaña and Luis De la Rosa, residents of South Texas. The bands used the guerilla tactics of disrupting transportation and communication in the border area and killing Anglos. In response, the United States Army moved reinforcements into the area.
A third version of the plan called for the foundation of a "Republic of Texas" to be made up of Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona, and parts of Mississippi and Oklahoma. San Antonio, Texas, was to serve as revolutionary headquarters, and the movement's leadership continued to come from South Texas. Raids originated on both sides of the Rio Grande, eventually assuming a pattern of guerilla warfare. Raids from the Mexican side came from territory under the control of Carranza, whose officers were accused of supporting the raiders. When the United States recognized Carranza as president of Mexico in October 1915, the raids came to an abrupt halt. Relations between the United States and Carranza quickly turned sour, however, amid growing violence along the border. When forces under another revolutionary general, Francisco (Pancho) Villa, attacked Columbus, New Mexico, in March 1916, the United States responded by sending a large military force under Gen. John J. Pershing into northern Mexico in pursuit of Villa. When the United States rejected Carranza's demands to withdraw Pershing's troops, fear of a military conflict between the United States and Mexico grew. In this volatile context, there was a renewal of raiding under the Plan of San Diego in May 1916. Mexican officials were even considering the possibility of combining the San Diego raiders with regular Mexican forces in an attack on Laredo. In late June, Mexican and United States officials agreed to a peaceful settlement of differences, and raids under the Plan of San Diego came to a halt.
The Plan of San Diego and the raids that accompanied it were originally attributed to the supporters of the ousted Mexican dictator Gen. Victoriano Huerta, who had been overthrown by Carranza in 1914. The evidence indicates, however, that the raids were carried out by followers of Carranza, who manipulated the movement in an effort to influence relations with the United States. Fatalities directly linked to the raids were surprisingly small; between July 1915 and July 1916 some thirty raids into Texas produced only twenty-one American deaths, both civilian and military. More destructive and disruptive was the near race war that ensued in the wake of the plan as relations between the whites and the Mexicans and Mexican Americans deteriorated in 1915–16. Federal reports indicated that more than 300 Mexicans or Mexican Americans were summarily executed in South Texas in the atmosphere generated by the plan. Economic losses ran into the millions of dollars, and virtually all residents of the lower Rio Grande valley suffered some disruption in their lives from the raids. Moreover, the plan's legacy of racial antagonism endured long after the plan itself had been forgotten.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Don M. Coerver and Linda B. Hall, Texas and the Mexican Revolution: A Study in State and National Border Policy, 1910–1920 (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1984). Charles C. Cumberland, "Border Raids in the Lower Rio Grande Valley-1915," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 57 (January 1954). Charles H. Harris III and Louis R. Sadler, "The Plan of San Diego and the Mexican-U.S. War Crisis of 1916: A Reexamination," Hispanic American Historical Review 58 (August 1978). Friedrich Katz, The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States and the Mexican Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). James A. Sandos, "The Plan of San Diego: War and Diplomacy on the Texas Border, 1915–1916," Arizona and the West 14 (Spring 1972). James Sandos, Rebellion in the Borderlands: Anarchism and the Plan of San Diego, 1904–1923 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992).
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” –James Madison
“Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic … That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” –James Madison
RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” Thomas Jefferson
"It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives." --John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756
"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." Thomas Jefferson
"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves." --Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775
The purchasing power of the dollar in 1913, when the chart above begins, was close to what it was in the 1830s. As long as we were still on a gold standard (up to 1933), it was almost as though an external force was drawing the value of the dollar back toward that adjusted value. The Great Depression and the policy tools used to fight it severed the domestic link of the dollar to gold. The external trade deficits of the United States during the 1960s caused the final rupture of the international link to gold in August 1971.
So it seems linking the currency to a commodity helps stabilizes it.
It seems to me that there needs to be a human hand able to make an adjustment, a pressure relief, emergency assistance or human judgment to avoid a run, a panic or a collapse, especially in these times. We faced a deflation scare recently and we always seem to face an inflation threat. We had a country go under. We have states going under. We've had market crashes. We had one allegedly triggered by a computer glitch. I remember a near-cornering of the silver market by two brothers. We have droughts, trade imbalances and we have budget shortfalls in the trillions. We've had foreign wars and we had attacks on the homeland with our own planes that shut down entire industries. With a little discipline we could avoid some of these catastrophes, but not all of them.
I am far from sure in this subject but many of these things might not have been a problem if on the gold standard. I am unsure about trade deficits. The panics and the rest would be bearable if I was unworried about the loss of value of my currency. Now days inflation punishes those who are fiscally responsible and save some money for a rainy day.
Here is an article that I ran across while searching for more info. On a cursory read it makes some good points, stable currency, inflation proof, and hard to counterfeit, but I have just skimmed it, a lesson from Obama's admin. Reader beware. http://www.nolanchart.com/article3660.html
To answer the worries of converting back to gold standard: It seems to me if you linked the dollar to an ounce of gold it would be 1 dollar to 0.000909091ounce of gold. (1ounce/1100 dollars =0.000909091 oz to $) I guess the question would be how much gold and how many dollars are there? Maybe the solution would be to start another currency, 1 buck = 1 oz gold, then let it compete with the us dollar. The dollar would be phased out via market forces while the new currency takes over. With our electronic currency technology fractions of a "buck" would be easier to deal with and make the transactions more feasible. Many of these ideas came from this article http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/11/ending-the-fed-from-the-bottom-up/
Any time I can get control over my own business/life and remove the government I feel better.
I have a hole in my understanding. Before we came off the gold standard there were boom and bust cycles. These were caused by what? Now we have come off the gold standard and have lost 95% of the value of the dollar and we still have boom and bust cycles. It is my understanding the fed was put in place to try and stop these ups and downs. So what is the upside of the fed. A semi governmental organization which we have no real oversight. I would rather have the stability of gold and control over my destiny and ride the boom and bust cycles out than be at the mercy of unknown oligarchies. Where should I look to fill the hole in my understanding?
Bottom line the illegal aliens send 17 BILLION plus dollars to the Mexico economy this year, no wonder the Mexican politicians are screaming about Arizona. If this catches on they will take a serious economical hit.
"DOBBS:........ The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever. "
Any honest reading of the US Constitution gives the impression that the Federal Government is but a lackey to the states. However, when it comes to the way it has been interpreted (incorrectly), there are three clauses which are widely cited as authority to usurp power which belongs elsewhere. In this article, I intend to delve into these and examine how they are true or false. I also intend to highlight the impact that the abuse/use of these clauses has had.
Article I Section8 Clause3 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This obviously means Congress has the right to regulate how much grain you can grow on your land for your own consumption, right? If you said no it does not (like any other thinking person), you are out of step with the US Supreme Court. This also means that the Congress can force you to purchase health insurance, right? If you said no, you are out of step with the Congress. Surely the Commerce clause means that if a migratory bird (that is hunted in another state) lands on your property, then your property can be seized by the Federal Govt. due to it’s part in interstate commerce right? No?
How about this one; The Federal Government can make gun laws (in direct contravention of the US Constitution) because they are sold over state lines. Obviously the ambiguous verbiage above allows them the authority to ignore the clearly unambiguous verbiage of “shall not be infringed,” right?
Well, there is the Government’s case, now how about the governed? For our case I will focus on some quotes from the founders:
How about that James Madison (the acknowledged father of the Constitution)?
It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.
So… the way I read James Madison here is that the Commerce clause is to keep the states themselves from interfering with commerce (laying tariffs between states, placing restrictions on imports, etc…). It seems that Madison did not want the Federal Government using the Commerce clause to control… well.. everything.
How about Thomas Jefferson? Here is the quote I found from him-
“[The commerce clause] does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) … but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”
Hmmm… I think Thomas Jefferson agreed with me. The Commerce clause was intended only to regulate resale.
In fact, the federalist papers used the term “commerce” dozens of times, and they all amounted to the resale of things by merchants and shippers, not one time did it mean growing of agriculture or manufacturing of products for sale. If this context was examined, then this would be the original intent of the Constitution.
Necessary And Proper Clause
Article I Section8 Clause18 states that Congress has the power:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Most school children are taught that this clause was added so that Congress could legislate on issues that would come with new inventions. (My teacher used to say that there were no autos in 1789, so they needed to put this clause in).
Surely this clause means that Congress can make any law they want, right? The problem with this view is that at the end of this clause the Constitution clearly limits the power to making laws necessary to carry out the other laws in the Constitution. In other words, Congress has the power to raise and support a navy, so they have the power to train sailors and commission ships.
These powers are referred to as “incidental powers.” They must be smaller than the power they are used in conjunction with. That is, they may regulate interstate commerce, but may not regulate state governments or laws.
Some examples of “necessary and proper” overreach are:
In 1896, it was ruled that it was legal for the Federal Government to condemn a railroads property to build a national park on the basis that it was necessary to the national defense that the citizens are proud of their country.
Now, I love my country as much as anyone else alive, however, I love the freedoms more than the national park, and this just illustrates what freedoms we do not have. The necessary and proper clause was also used to justify the national bank as necessary to conduct the borrowing and national defense powers of Congress. But lets look at some other input:
Joseph Story (an early Supreme Court Justice) said-
“The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant.”
This about spells it out. The debate for McCullough Vs. Maryland is another source for quotes from Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson.
General Welfare Clause
To promote or to provide for the general welfare, appears in two places in the US Constitution;
First in the preamble, which is just a listing of reasons and gives no powers whatsoever, and then Article I Section8 Clause 1 where it states:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Does this clause mean that Congress has no limits except what they believe will advance the “general welfare?” Is it just the Supreme Court which determines the general welfare, but the federal government may do anything that the court does not forbid? This is the primary opinion of the elite and the elected. It has been used to justify welfare, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and a host of freedom-destroying legislation. But what did the founders think of this?
Take James Madison-
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
or this one:
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Or this one from Thomas Jefferson
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
In reality, the “General welfare” clause is a qualifier. Congress may only lay taxes for revenue to be used for the general welfare (as opposed to the special welfare) of the states, for example, they may lay taxes to build postal roads, but they may not lay taxes for building postal roads in New Hampshire, to the detriment of the rest of the states. So, ironically, the way that Congress horse-trades favors for votes in Congress makes most legislation unconstitutional.
In addition to these gross misconceptions by the Federal Govt., they add the Supremacy clause, which states:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.”
This is pointed to anytime the Federal Government wants to escape criticism from people saying they have exceeded their authority. However, a careful reading of the passage above makes it clear that only laws in pursuance of the US Constitution are supreme. Anytime the Federal Govt. goes beyond the Constitution, citizens are not bound to obey them.
The preceding examples of intentional misconstruction of the Constitution are examples of our Federal Government out of control. They pit the citizens against each other; they take from the hand of labor to give to the hand of not only the needy, but the banks and corporations as well.
They make people perpetual slaves by addicting them to handouts and then denying them the escape from this perpetual misery by over-regulating prospective employers for these people. They have bogged us down in perpetual wars overseas for over a period of 70 years, ignoring the appropriate method of war-making under the Constitution.
They have criminalized multiple forms of commerce, suspended Habeas corpus in absence of properly declared wars, and they have systematically denied due process rights for the people.
Indeed, this list could go on for pages. Most of these transgressions against the natural rights of man are done in the name of the good intentions (saving people from themselves). These need to end, and our country needs to return to the republican form of government it was founded on. Our states need to resume pushing back at the Federal Government and interposing on our behalf.
Tim Reeves is an 11 year veteran of the U.S Navy, and is now an engineer, He grew up in Michigan, but has resided in the Pacific NW since 1992. He’s the State Chapter Coordinator for the Oregon Tenth Amendment Center.
"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787
Nature of the republic
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."- Thomas Jefferson
The revelation of the oil deep in the ocean which may enter the gulf current is worrisome. The unknown is always worrisome. In the 80's if you went to the beach in Texas you would inevitably step in a tar ball. There was oil on the beach it was part of the way the beach was, normal. The environment seemed to be in pretty good shape. The fishing was very good. You never saw a bird covered in oil. My point is the gulf is capable of handling some oil. Now oil on this scale? We have yet to see massive slicks on the beaches. I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
An annoying aspect of this fiasco, just one of many, is the government reg limiting the damages BP is liable for, here is a glaring example of how gov't intervention can hurt the industry. I feel if the gov't had stayed out of it then the liability would have been such that there would have been not 1 failsafe device but 5 or more. After the 80's the oil companies running the rigs off the coast put these devices in place with some others, not sure what, and the oil on the beaches became very very rare. They have had 2decades of oil free beaches, a pretty good record. Of coarse this one oh sht wipes out 2 decades of at a boys!
The following is based off a speech given at the Citrus County, FL tea party on April 17, 2010
The 10th Amendment, also known as the “states rights” amendment says very simply, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Very simple words…and these simple words mean just this: If it’s not in the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the US government is not empowered to legislate it.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes the New Deal, the Great Society, or nationalized health care or any other fiscal or civil dishonesty that is being perpetrated upon the people.
When the revisionist historians talk about the all-encompassing power of the United States, there should be two flags that go up immediately: First, we should remember that after the revolution, the states were as free and independent from each other as they were from the British. And those men that gave us that independence were not about to give it away to a government that would impose its will upon them in all matters. Second, at the first constitutional convention, there was a proposal called the Virginia Plan which would have given the federal government the power to veto the actions of state legislatures. It was soundly defeated. I ask you, does that sound like a historical basis to give the United States Government free and total reign over the states? Absolutely not!
Historically-speaking, all-encompassing power to the federal government has never been in our nation’s DNA.
Our opponents seek to assign hatred to our words. They seek to discredit our attempts to return the states to their proper check and balance position on federal power. But neither history nor current events legitimizes this. The truth is that the demand for state sovereignty was expressed emphatically in both northern and southern state conventions.
On February 6, 1788 Massachusetts, the 6th state to ratify the proposed constitution, was the first state to formally request amendments to the document. And their requests went in part, first “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised.”
Rhode Island insisted at its ratification convention that the United States shall “guarantee to each its sovereignty, freedom, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States.”
In Virginia, they demanded the “powers granted under the constitution being derived from the people of the United States be resumed by them whensoever these same powers shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will.” [emphasis added]
That power remains with who? You, and at your will!
Have we become so comfortable with the illusion of freedom that we will ignore the intolerable act of 16,000 additional armed federal agents enforcing punishment on us for not buying health insurance? Will we rely on their systems, their courts and bureaucrats, to protect our rights?
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has sided with its co-partners in the federal government more times than it has the states. Relying on the Supreme Court to be an impartial player in intergovernmental disputes is like relying on your ex’s Mother to be your mediator in your divorce settlement. The supreme court has been missing in action for generations – and congress and the executive are only too happy about this.
A better option is nullification. The correct term for nullification is actually state interposition. When the central government legislates outside of its enumerated powers, the state government is obliged to interpose, to place itself in between, its citizens and that unlawful legislation to protect the rights of those citizens.
reclaiming-american-revolutionThe concept was first thought of as the states’ right of self-defense. The idea of states’ rights and the defense of same are as old as our revolution and they are not the sole franchise of any one geographical region. The adherence to states rights and state sovereignty threatens no one except those enemies of individualism and liberty.
In writing the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, voide and of no force.” They are illegitimate, and they should not be obeyed!
Andrew Nappi [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Florida Tenth Amendment Center.
"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." --John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 1763
"There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come." --Peter Muhlenberg, from a Lutheran sermon read at Woodstock, Virginia, 1776
What?, you are going to use a typical liberal tactic? If you want a bigger government which controls your life then say so, but to attack a founding father's reputation in an attempt to tear down his statement because you disagree with his stance doesn't do you credit.
Just FYI the Jefferson Foundation did the DNA test and concluded Jefferson did father Heming's children, but they failed to publish the doctor's report, who was in charge of verifying the DNA evidence, which stated the evidence was to circumstantial to draw a conclusion. Further the Jefferson Heritage Society which has more academic clout than the Foundation has looked at the evidence and concluded the charges are almost certainly false. Jefferson's overseer Edmund Bacon is on record stating Jefferson did not father Sally's children but had seen another white man leave Sally's bedchamber on many a morning. These charges were originally leveled by James T Callender in 1802. He had an axe to grind with Jefferson, who passed him over for the appointment to postmaster of Richmond, Virgina. Callender was a noted political hatchet journalist of the period.
"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not ... would make the judiciary a despotic branch. ... [T]he germ of dissolution of our federal government is ... the federal Judiciary ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. ... They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone." --Thomas Jefferson