Dearest sister in Christ, Im confident that well need your indispensable and ever-gracious help as co-sponsor of this Freeper Research Project .
Bookmark for tomorrow. Looks like a good one.
Very interesting! Good job! My thoughts:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm
Feel free to use any of the above in your final write up, please ping me when you finish!
With respect to a historical subject such as this, IMHO we read too many books and not enough documents. Surely, our founding ancestors would be utterly amazed to learn of some of the things they said, thought, and did.
I haven't the link, but it's easy to google: type in Constitutional Society , click on Liberty Library , and start browsing. Warning: it's addictive, you may come to hate me.
Thanks, betty, for this opportunity.
What has "gone wrong" is that there isn't any recourse for judges who are incompetent. In the real world your pay is based on your performance.
I keep hearing people squawk that judges should have a fixed term, say 10 years, so the incompetent ones can be pushed out. I have a better idea - base their pay, benefits, and retirement on their performance.
Take the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example. Three-quarters of all of their rulings are overturned. We should take away three-quarters of their pay, benefits, and retirement for the year they make the lousy rulings. That should give them plenty of incentive to make rulings based on the Constitution instead of their will.
This might interest you two.
*HUGS!*
Thank you for posting this most interesting thread!
I am interested in what has gone wrong with the First Amendment. How has freedom of religion- granted to us by our forefathers, including the rather secular Jefferson and Franklin- devolved into what seems to be becoming a godless society?
And how do we reclaim our society's values without ramming one particular set of values down people's throats with a gun barrel?
Does anyone have a source for the legend about the original draft of the Declaration of Independence reading ". . . life, liberty and property" instead of 'pursuit of happiness'?
Late bookmark and a bump for manana!
bump
--Clarence Thomas, Justice, concurring, Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
"Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right."
--Clarence Thomas, Justice, Printz v. U.S., Footnote 2.
Right out of John Locke, but instead of happiness, he said property. His book was mentioned often in wills, to be given to the oldest son.
This country was founded by not the eldest son, but by the younger sons who had no prospects in their homeland except the military, the sea, as a merchant, or the clergy. All inheritance went to the oldest son and he was expected to support his mother, and spinster sisters. Most of the original 13 states set up inheritance as equal between heirs unless otherwise written.
As for church and state, the constitution says the state shall establish no religion, not that we are free from religion. In England, the King was head of the Church of England, and in France, the king was head of the Catholic Church after the Pope, etc. The founders did not want a state religion, but freedom for the citizens to choose a religion for themselves, their families, and their communities.
Bump. If we could only find some modern politicians with these thoughts...
A very well written piece-- ThankYou-- Might I add for the
discussion -- Donald S.Lutz "the Relative Influence of European Writers On Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought"-American Political Science Review 189(1984) p189-197 Fairly well documented source of whom our
Founders cited in their political writings.
On Second Amendment I find many of the Law Review Articles
On Each Side-Presented as appendix to Guns Crime and Freedom,by Wayne LaPierre fairly weighs more on the side
of those who understand and agree with Joseph Story on the
Second Amendment.(I prefer Story on the Constitution-but
understand there are those who follow a different hermeneutic) And I do suggest "A Familiar Exposition on the
Constitution of the United States "by Jospeh Story,Regnery Gateway 1997 from the 1859 original as must read.
ping
Marker Bump!
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.
Federalist #62
Governmental duplicity in the guise of the 14th Amendment has caused us to claim to be United States citizens, which is a STATUORY, or ARTIFICIAL entity.
The intent of the the Founders was for us to be residents first, and State citizens if we chose to be. A State citizen is a CIVIL entity. Civil entities are 'natural persons' or human beings because civil law is based on common law.
But don't take my word for it:
"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
(Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
______________________________________________________________________
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."
______________________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government and are therefore subject to every whim of every black-robed bandit that sits on a bench....nor do we any longer have 'rights'
Merely privileges.
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt
Bookmarked for later response.
~ joanie