Free Republic

Is this surprising? I seem to remember reading something about this in a book. They lived in a garden and ate apples or something.

Really?
I was thinking about the ones on a boat.

>> balance budget amendment
>
>Would do much more harm than good, allowing the Lying Left to force higher taxes because of their out-of-control and mostly unconstitutional spending. It would be a disaster.

Only if you aren't very imaginative in the wording; here's one that would cut the spending down at the knees:

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AMENDMENT

Section I The power of Congress to regulate the value of money is hereby rescinded; the unit of money of the United States is the Dollar. Section II The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand. Section III To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI). Section IV The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available. Any five states may commission a third party audit to confirm this report at their own expense. Section V The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section VI Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold, money, or real estate to be confiscated from a citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall: a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee), b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits, c. pay all legal costs, and d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy. Section VII The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void. Section VIII The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation and theft.

It's from the Amendment Booklet pdf in the list that Art in Idaho keeps on the topic of Article V, and somebody posted a few of them in this petition.

The last third of Marbury v. Madison:

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.

The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. [p179]

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State." Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

"No person," says the Constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution [p180] contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

Maybe the BoR should have been 30 Amendments long ...

Maybe; there's some amendments in a list that Art in Idaho keeps that I like: Amendment Booklet PDF.
Among these are limits to income tax, including jury nullification; balanced budget, to include a return to gold standard; a judicial reform amendment, to include repeal of the 14th amendment; commerce clause clarification, to include explicit exclusion of arms (and ammo) from Congress's taxation power; and a few more.

There's a petition for several of these here.

If Convention of the States Doesn’t Happen, Your Children Won’t Recognize America in 50 Years

A better question: do you recognize it from 20 years ago?

Now look at us: You choose which laws you want to obey and discard the rest. It’s “so-called” civil rights.

It's not even "you", it's some guy wearing a black robe who thinks he's the Fourth Person of the Quadrinity.

>> “...but the Judiciary has so usurped power and authority from the Constitution..”
>
> A few impeachments and public executions would tamp down their ardor.

I'd hope so, but the fact of the matter is the Judiciary would revolt at being checked like that: they're too used to their unassailable positions as black-robed god-kings, having made themselves above and immune from the law… considering all that, it'll probably take nooses lifting them off the ground to bring them down to earth.

RetiredTexasVet:
“FBI Hostage Rescue Team”
You will note that the HRT was on the front lines in the assassinations at Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. .... not so much for rescuing anything.

Interesting; I did not know this.

blackdog:
An "FBI Hostage Rescue Team".
I don't know about most of you but I find that concept group a little disingenuous.
The only hostages the FBI rescues are politicians who chum the swamp waters in which they feed.

Hmm… perhaps we should petition to change the name to Hostage Rescue Crew.

Actually, she is correct. Under socialism, there will be less funeral costs for the individuals.

Well, mass graves are cheap.

They would like Trump to stop the judges in order for them to have grounds for Impeachment.

Funny thing: all of this can be sidestepped pretty easily, as I show in post #25.

All Trump has to do to prep the ground is two things: (a) tweet out the real numbers for the illegal population, as it's likely closer to 30 Million than the always-constant "11 Million" the press and government agencies say; and (b) get a governor, preferably of a southern border-state, to declare a state of emergency deploying their National Guard and demanding that the President uphold Article 4, Section 4.

Neither of these are strictly necessary, but they cut the legs out of a lot of the objections that could be made if the president were to act on his own. The Constitution should be enough of a justification to act, but the Judiciary has so usurped power and authority from the Constitution that they've convinced whole generations that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

So does the president run the country or the judiciary?

There's a pretty big chance that's what's going to kick off the next Civil War.
The fact of the matter is that the Constitution in Article 4, Section 4 mandates that the federal government protect the several States from invasion — and if the President were to actively enforce this, especially militarily (which is infinitely more justifiable than war with Russia, Syria, Iran, [Insert Middle-East Country]), the courts would trip over themselves to invalidate those orders and, likely, the Congress would move to impeach… which is the height of irony: Trump's failure to repel the ongoing invasion [along with the past 20-years worth of presidents] actually is an impeachable offense, but that's the one thing where they can't impeach him otherwise it ideologically works against them and shows them to be complicit.

Even more fun is to contemplate the possibility of such officials trying to impeach him for upholding and honoring the Constitution: in the above scenario, the president would be working to end an invasion as per the Constitution, therefore an attempt to remove him for this would be both undermining/betraying the Constitution as well as providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the states. That is treason, and the Congress is not privileged from arrest for treason, and so instigating the above would be a good way to clear out politicians who are not loyal to the Constitution as their oath requires.

Prayed.

He will appear when everyone is in the kill zone, and there is no way out. He can't do it now with a divided country and mid-terms undecided.

There's just one problem with this theory: there's plenty of stuff he could be prosecuting that would have zero impact on the recusal/investigation and have minimal impact in disrupting/alerting "the swamp" — as an example, he could direct the DOJ to come down on patent trolls (the companies which acquire patents and then make their money by pushing infringement cases), he could investigate the rampant H1B fraud (especially in the tech sector), he could investigate/prosecute the OPM breach (allegedly from china) from a few years ago [IIRC nobody was held to account], or investigate/prosecute the Wells Fargo institutionalized identity-theft incident [namely how they got out of it by paying such a paltry fine].

From what I remember when Trump started hinting he might fire Granny Sessions, Granny's former Senate colleagues told Trump they would never confirm a replacement and might even use it as grounds for impeachment.
And those were the "Republicans." Senate brotherhood is for life, apparently.

There's a lot of people with (R) next to their name who are part of the Swamp; in fact, it might be easier to list the ones who aren't.

Jeff Sessions is doing his best NOT to prosecute anything. He is a compromised player, at best, and likely actually in-league with the swamp.
What’s going to be interesting is when the Hollywood stuff goes public, as in mainstream, “the dam broke!”/”there’s no stopping it!” — Hollywood actually picked a fight with 4chan, see http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/07/hollywood-vs-chans.html and if even half of what 4Chan’s been digging up is true, when SHTF it’s going to be amazing to watch — because if he fails to prosecute, then he’s signalling that he’s in with the pedophiles/human-traffickers/foreign-agents, but if he *DOES* then there’s a good chance the links between Hollywood and the Swamp will be uncovered.

Irony, oh irony; I'd written a paper several years ago detailing how the Iran Deal is provably treason, and guess whose names are there? That's right Flake! (And Sessions, and Cruz.)

PS - Art 2 clearly defines the President as having diplomatic roles.

Right now they have such a strong hold over the Academy, I don’t think we’re gonna make much progress until we break their backs by severely reducing their numbers first - yes it is necessary to burn down the village in order to save it. At least that’s my view.

I think you might be right. Though there's a lot more than simply "burn it down" that needs to happen.

IMHO the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government is the true definition of socialism.

Hm, this is quite the interesting thought; I'll have to mull it over.

My idea......no more student loans for liberal arts. If you want student loans it’s gotta be science, business, engineering, etc Economically useful majors only.

This is a… misdirected idea.
You see, despite all the clamor about the STEM-shortage it's quite difficult to get a job in STEM [certainly things like programming] because it's not about an actual shortage, it's really about employers being unwilling to pay market wages, instead opting for importation of H1B visa-holders or 'poaching' from other companies. See this book for the hiring aspect.

But, in addition to this, much of our problems with the culture war are because conservatives simply rolled over and died on the arts. I mean, ask it this way: who's going to have more impact? An engineer who puts in his time doing solid work for twenty years, or a teacher indoctrinating children for twenty years? — the current culture war clearly shows the massive impact that sustained, forced, multi-generational indoctrination has had on our society.

I don’t buy it.
If it were true, then salaries would have been rising all these years. As it is, salaries had basically been stagnant from my experience until Trump happened. I’m actually making a bit less than I was a decade ago despite having significantly more responsibility and needing far more technical knowledge.

Not only this; but experientially, corporate thought tends to run to the idea that any and all training is exclusively a cost.
The idea is astounding, and entirely insane and hypocritical — especially when the employer-side is constantly whining and complaining about a lack of loyalty on part of employees while showing zero loyalty to those employees.

Just take a look at IT job-postings; it's common to see Entry Level requirements of 5-years experience — I've seen a few 10-year requirement jobs as well — and often hyper-specific requirements, like particular version of their OS, environment, tools etc.