Posts Tagged ‘Glen Beck’

Bread on the Bottom of US

March 9, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/9/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: The Bread on the Bottom of US – a summary

In a sandwich, there are usually two pieces of bread and something in the middle. In OUR republic, the piece of bread on top of US, WE the People are all the causes even though of good intentions, are divisive because, WE are not united. If WE are not united, WE are divided. It’s just that simple. The piece of bread on the bottom US, WE the People is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” And in the middle of the sandwich is US, WE the People. What follows is a summary of the piece of bread on bottom of US.

Last time, WE saw that WE are the jam in the middle of the sandwich. WE the People are the only solution. It is US, WE the People that must tear down and rip out the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system,” the “legal fiction” that has co-mingled itself within OUR republic. After those brief introductory remarks…   🙂

…the summary of the bottom piece of bread beneath US, WE the People, follows. These are the facts and they are undisputed. The conclusions are yours. The “system” removed or allowed to continue, is dependent upon an overwhelming number of US, WE the People overwhelmingly recognizing and are overwhelmingly recognized that WE are the only solution!

Please Note: Since I was born in the state of Missouri and it is known as the ‘Show Me’ state, you will see the words ‘Show me,’ repeated often below.

  1. In 1861, Congress had adjourned sine die (pronounced sign-e die-e, Latin “without a day”), to reconvene. President Abraham Lincoln summoned them back by presidential order April 15, 1861, invoking the “Extraordinary occasions” clause of the U.S, Constitution Article 2 Section 3. Congress responded as ordered and citing the same clause as the president, re-convened July 4th, 1861. No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional Congress that re-convened on that day. Therefore, it was an Executive Congress. If you prefer, call this an Extraordinary Occasion Congress. Even though Congress has continued to convene and adjourn since 1861, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of this being changed since 1861? Draw your own conclusions.
  2. If the Congress was under the jurisdiction or control of the Executive Branch, how did the Judiciary operate? No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional Judiciary Branch. The president from the proclamation of 1861, called the military into service as the Commander in Chief, to suppress a rebellion, not to declare a war as only Congress could do. The military and/or military justice (rule by force) would replace the courts (rule by law). Therefore, it was an Executive Judiciary. If you prefer, call this an Extraordinary Occasion Judiciary. In Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution it states in part – “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it…” Even though the Judiciary Branch has continued to operate since 1861 and specifically 1863 under the Conscription Act ever since, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of this being changed since 1861 or 1863? Draw your own conclusions.
  3. On February 25, 1863, The National Bank Act became federal law. It established a “system” for a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks,” raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law was later replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864 and other such laws, including the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (income tax) ever since. Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of the control over OUR money being changed since 1863? Draw your own conclusions.
  4. In 1863, Congress passed the Conscription Act and it was signed into law by President Lincoln March 3rd, 1863. Not only did this law require people to be drafted into the military, but to enforce the law, it set up “districts” among all the northern states and when under control of the union army, all the southern states as well. While appearing constitutional among the states, in having representation in congress, the true power of enforcement was a provost-marshal of each “district.” No matter how one looks at this, whether they choose to think of or use the words Martial Law or not, this was not a normal constitutional representation of the several states. Therefore, these once sovereign and component states became Executive “district” states. If you prefer, call them Extraordinary Occasion States. Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of the jurisdiction over “district” states being changed since 1863? Draw your own conclusions.
  5. General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863, effectively put the entire country under Martial Law. It is specifically so named in SECTION I – “Martial LawMilitary jurisdictionMilitary necessityRetaliation.” Even though Martial Law was lifted after the war, southern states re-entered the union and habeas corpus was restored, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of jurisdiction over “district” states, the Judiciary and Legislative Branch being restored to their original Constitutional authority? Or do all remain under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of government? Is our entire nation still an Extraordinary Occasion nation? Draw your own conclusions.
  6. On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, making it law that slavery or involuntary servitude “shall not exist.” Was this an Executive Extraordinary Occasion Congress or a Constitutional Congress? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of jurisdiction to enforce this law has not and is not still, residing under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? Draw your own conclusions.
  7. December 6, 1865, the several states ratified the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, thereby making it part of, “the law of the land.” Was this “ratification” made by sovereign and component states or were they Extraordinary Occasion “district states” under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “any place subject to their jurisdiction,” meaning, the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  8. On June 13, 1866, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Was this passed by a Constitutional Congress or an Executive Extraordinary Occasion Congress? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “within its jurisdiction,” meaning the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  9. On July 9th, 1868, the several states ratified the 14th Amendment, making it a part of the “law of the land,” the U.S. Constitution. Were these sovereign and component states or the Extraordinary Occasion “district” states of 1863?  Does this Amendment 14 Section 1, name a new class of citizenship? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” referring to the citizens and their relationship to the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  10. From the ratification February 3, 1870, with the 15th Amendment added to the U.S. Constitution, was this made a part of “the law of the land,” by sovereign and component states or Extraordinary Occasion “district” states? Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the emphatic words of this amendment, “citizens of the United States” Amendment 15 Section 1, referring to the citizens and their relationship to the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Government, has ever been changed? Draw your own conclusions.
  11. February 3, 1913, the several states ratified the 16th Amendment which allowed the Federal Government to collect income taxes “from whatever sources derived.” Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record that the necessary ¾ of the states actually ratified this law, as it is written, in the U.S. Constitution? Even if you could, were these states sovereign and component states or Extraordinary Occasion “district states? Draw your own conclusions.
  12. Amendments 17 – 27 from 1913 to 1992, to the U.S. Constitution, were these ratified by sovereign component states or Extraordinary Occasion “district” states? Please understand that I am not advocating the return of slavery or the denial of ‘the vote’ to all eligible citizens regardless of race, color, creed, sex or legal age. The questions are not to the intention of these amendments or even their effectiveness, but the jurisdiction; control over them and were they proposed by a Constitutional Congress or a Extraordinary Occasion Executive Congress, and were they ratified by Constitutional State Legislatures or Extraordinary Occasion, Executive State “district” Legislatures?
  13. Article 1 Section 8. U.S. Constitution in part reads: – “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,…” This is obviously referring to what we know as, Washington D.C. or the “District” of Columbia. In 1871, the Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871. – CHAPTER 62, 1871 16 United States Statutes at Large 419 FORTY FIRST CONGRESS SESSION III . CHAPTER 62, 1871 CHAP. LXII. —“An act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.” The original intent of the Constitution is that no state would have an unfair advantage or control of the seat of OUR united central government. Congress was given the exclusive control, to govern this “district,” the District of Columbia. Even as a “body corporate” it was not to be and is, not inconsistent with the Constitution. It is set up as a republic etc. It does have a constitution. Its physical boundaries are confined to 10 square miles. However, can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of items numbering 1 -12 above, have ever been changed since 1861? Therefore, this seat of government, this “District” of Columbia, Washington D.C., incorporates the Extraordinary Occasion “district” citizens, the Extraordinary Occasion “district” states, with exclusive control over both its “district” states and its “district” citizens by the Extraordinary Occasion Congress. The Extraordinary Occasion Congress and the Extraordinary Occasion Judiciary remain under the jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Occasion Executive Branch and ultimately with the president of the United States. This is the “system” of which I have referred to so often as, a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”  It is “legal fiction.” It is interpretation, legalese, legal speak and a mindset established under “extraordinary Occasions,” since 1861. Since 1861, it has continued to operate to the present-day.  As such, it is not inconsistent with the Constitution as it is set up as republic and a corporate form of government with a constitution. But it has “exclusive” jurisdiction, power and control over the entire country, and its people. OUR republic and OUR constitution, and OUR unalienable rights remain hidden under its veil of secrecy. It is not a person, persons or a party’s secrecy, but the secrecy or hidden self, of itself. This is not a conspiracy in that there is no single person, persons or a party to blame. It is what it is, a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” Most people under it cannot see this anymore than most people that operate it. All are “useful idiots” until all can see it, know how to tear it down and rip it out of OUR republic and DO IT which is to – RIP IT DOWN AND TEAR IT OUT! Can anyone Show me the day, time, and record of this being changed since 1861? Can anyone Show me that all the laws and even amendments to OUR Constitution since 1861, have ever been amended, rescinded, canceled or overturned since 1861? Can anyone Show me that these are not the facts and that they are not undisputed? Draw your own conclusions.

To those of US, WE the people that have long wondered or felt in OUR ‘gut’ and to those that now wonder or feel in their ‘gut’ that something is seriously wrong in OUR republic, can anyone Show me that it is not this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” which explains it?

The bread on top of US, WE the People with all the almost innumerable causes and multiple directions, can anyone Show me that these do not divide US and even though good intentioned, prevent US from being united?

The bread on the bottom of US, WE the People with all its intricate tentacle like details; exclusive jurisdiction and control over US, WE the people, OUR Country, OUR States, OUR government, OUR republic and thus preventing the normal flow of OUR Constitution, controls it as well, can anyone Show me that it is not a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system”?

The jam in the middle of this sandwich is US, WE the People.

This sandwich is eating US, WE the People, you and me, OUR public servants, OUR nation, OUR, republic, OUR Constitution and the future security of OUR liberty; OUR unalienable rights and OUR posterity.

WE are being eaten alive!

Next Time: Purple Haze

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle


Next Post – Purple Haze
Previous Post – WE the Jam
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction
Advertisements

The Bread on Top of US

March 4, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/4/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

2.   The 9/12 Project?

3.   ‘The Commerce Clause?’

4.   Convening a Constitutional Congress?

5.   Hope that the present circumstances will change and the will of WEthe People will be implemented?

6.   Hope that the other party will get its act together and produce the necessary changes for WE the People in future elections?

7.   Remain divided and work for self, other causes, parties and candidates.

Today: The Bread on Top of WE – a summary

In a sandwich, there are usually two pieces of bread and something in the middle. In OUR republic, the piece of bread on top of US, WE the People are all the causes even though of good intentions, are divisive because, WE are not united. If WE are not united, WE are divided. It’s just that simple. The piece of bread on the bottom US, WE the People is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” And in the middle of the sandwich is US, WE the People. What follows is a summary of the piece of bread on top of US.

  1. Overthrowing the government by the military will not work! OUR military answer to a chain of command and ultimately to the Commander and Chief, the President of the United States. Any attempt to overthrow the government, would be considered an act of treason.
  2. The 9.12 Project will not work! People were mostly bonded together on 9.12.01 through fear. WE need to be united by the common goal of securing our sovereign and unalienable rights. The 9.12 Project purports to be a non-political organization. By its very nature, it is both political and a commercial enterprise with links to Glen Beck, Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. Being associated with these prevents this from being a viable solution, as there are many that do not support them. Therefore, WE the People remain divided.
  3. Challenging The Commerce Clause will not work! The courts generally side with their own opinions and do not appear willing to overturn, over a century of their own decisions. In order to challenge this constitutional clause, the word “commerce” would have to be defined and proven, as to its original intention in 1789. The case must be presented to the U.S. Supreme Court and accepted to be heard. The legalese and statutory must be perfect. The attorneys arguing before the court must have perfect trial records. A majority of the Chief Justices must be willing to overturn their decisions and all those since 1789, with regards to the commerce clause.
  4. Convening a Constitutional Congress (Article V Convention or Convention to propose amendments if you prefer) will not work! It is time consuming. At least ²/³ of the states must all agree to apply to Congress for a convention. Once this occurs, Congress then is supposed to call for a convention. If they have not received the required number of applications and even if they have, Congress apparently believes it is their constitutional authority to accept or reject such applications. But if and when such a convention was to convene, there is no way in our present-day to control the outcome in the proposals chosen or the ratification by ¾ of the state Legislatures. From a practical standpoint alone, it is impossible to amend the 100’s and 1,000’s of laws not in the Constitution, affecting, effecting and infecting OUR republic. And such a convention does not address the principle cause, which is a corrupt, corrupting, and corruptible “system,” which would prevent or not allow it to proceed. Get rid of the “system” surrounding the process and then the process will work.
  5. Hope that the circumstances will change and OUR republic will be restored will not work! Things moving in one direction have the tendency of continuing to move in the same direction. An equal and opposite force would only stop the motion. Therefore, a greater and opposite force is required. Hope is for a future, based solely upon the actions of the past and the present.
  6. Hope that the ‘other’ party will get its act together will not work! Things moving in one direction have the tendency of continuing to move in the same direction. An equal and opposite force would only stop the motion. Therefore, a greater and opposite force is required. Hope is for a future, based solely upon the actions of the past and the present. Fear of voter reprisal may make some temporary changes, but it is not a person, persons or party that are solely responsible, it is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” that must be torn down and ripped out of OUR republic!
  7. Remaining divided and work for self, other causes, parties and candidates, will not work! While issues, methods and the qualifications of a person, persons or party may be important, if WE the People are divided, WE are divided. Any solution in order for it to be implemented requires an overwhelming majority of WE the People united, in order for OUR will to be recognized.

    Next Time: WE the Jam

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

    How You Can Help


    Ask not what your country can do for you

    or what you can do for your country,

    but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


    1 of WE,

    Dahni
    An Amer-I-Can eagle


    Next Post – WE the Jam
    Previous Post – The Storm Before the Calm
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    Convening a Constitutional Congress

    February 2, 2010

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 2/02/10

    all rights reserved

    HOW can WE the People can regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?WE have been delving into what won’t work in order to find what will work. So far:

    The List (simplified)

    1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

    2.   The 9/12 Project?

    3.   ‘The Commerce Clause?’

    Today: Why Convening a Constitutional Congress won’t Work

    Note: The following was edited on 3/7/10 from the original post on 2/2/10. I recently received a great deal of criticism in reference to my information regarding this post. Although I object to the manner in which the criticism was made, upon further research, the criticism was taken to heart. I was originally born in Missouri, known as the ‘Show Me State.’ Show me where I am wrong and I will change. I have no problems with criticism or making changes when necessary. My intentions are not to deceive anyone intentionally or unintentionally. Although I found it necessary to make some changes in this post, my conclusion that Convening a Constitutional Congress or a Convention to propose amendments, or an Article V Convention if you prefer to call it, has nonetheless remained the same. Such a Convention, will not work in the present-day! The reasons for this are as follows in this post.

    -Dahni-

    Last time WE concluded our series on challenging the Commerce Clause and saw the beginnings of a corrupt system in 1861 when the ‘trap’ was constructed. This system or ‘trap’ called ‘legal fiction,’ was likened to scaffolding around a building under construction.’ WE saw that WE are the “bait” for this trap and WE are what the trap was built for, to capture and control. If 1861 was the beginning of the “trap” and 1863 was when the “bait” (US) was set and 1871 was when the “trap” was sprung, its origins were many years earlier.

    As early as June of 1776, a committee was appointed to draft ‘The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union‘, customarily referred to as the Articles of Confederation. This was OUR first constitution and was ratified by the states by March of 1781, which legally federated the sovereign and independent states already cooperating through the Continental Congress, into a new federation styled the “United States of America”

    There were problems and almost immediately after ratification, the process of forming OUR constitution began until completed in 1789. I will not go into great detail here, but I highly suggest WE research the history and documents of The Articles of Confederation and The Constitutional Congress that resulted in OUR Constitution. In performing OUR due diligence, it must be noted:

    1. The Constitutional Congress met in secret behind closed doors and drawn drapes, its alleged intent was to allow delegates to be able to speak freely?
    2. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Patrick Henry did not attend, why?
    3. The only information about these secret meetings is from recollections of James Madison from his journals, written years after the proceedings?
    4. What were the issues debated and the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution?

    The Declaration of Independence in 1776 was by unanimous consent. There is evidence to support the idea that a motion was entered and accepted requiring unanimous acceptance. But it is believed the motion was made to kill the whole idea, assuming the idea that not all would agree. It was thought improbable if not impossible that all the colonies would agree. But they did! The Articles of Confederation provided that all states would have to agree to make changes to or to disband the Union. Well, this was one of the first problems. Some thought to get all the states to agree would be impossible so it was changed into our present Constitution that 2/3 of both houses of Congress or the several states would be required to propose amendments and ¾ of the states to ratify the amendments making them part of the Constitution . As to disbanding or seceding from the Union, the issue was never resolved and was left and referred to, The Declaration of Independence.

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Excerpt from: the Declaration of Independence 1776

    The intent was that as each state had entered the Union one by one, they have the liberty to disband or secede, one by one. The words “perpetual Union” from the Articles of Confederation were stricken in the new Constitution. President Abraham Lincoln argued in 1861 that all the states were part of the Union and therefore, all the states or at least 2/3 of the states would be required to propose to disband and ¾ of the states were required to disband. By sheer logic, the original 13 colonies were not formed at the same time, but one by one. The signers of both ‘The Declaration and ‘The Constitution’ did not all sign at the same time, but one by one or one after the other. The rest of the “several states” since 1789 did not all enter the union at the same time, but one by one and even on different years, the last, Hawaii, August 21,1959.

    A confederation was considered too weak and a more centralized government or a federation was formed. Representation and slavery was argued. Some wanted equal representation and some wanted slavery abolished. Some favored more power to the larger states; some wanted slaves counted and represented and others did not want slaves counted or represented. Back in forth this went for days of warm weather, inside drawn drapes, behind closed doors, with powdered and sugar water wigs, and heavy clothing, they were hot and their tempers rose with the mercury.   🙂

    One compromise after another was proposed until the final Constitution was agreed upon and then later ratified by a majority of the states. Here is where the idea of a Democracy (rule by majority) instead of a Republic (rule by law) which would protect the rights of all, really started. There is a huge difference however, between a democracy and a democratic process! But sufficient force remained in the Republic by limiting the powers of the Federal government and the balance of powers charged to the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches.

    Since these times and in our lifetimes, WE have seen the balance of powers challenged. The Executive branch has tried to control the other two. The legislative branch has tried to dominate the other two branches. More control has been sought and exercised over the Judiciary. The Judiciary has overturned rulings (even their own), and attempted to legislate from the bench and instead of enforcing and protecting the Constitution, have interpreted it as they deemed appropriate. And WE the People have been the bait and the intended victims in this dangerous game. Quite frankly, WE are sick of this and many have tried and are trying to do something about this corrupt “system.” But it’s not the Constitution, a party, person, persons or WE the People that are corrupt; it’s a “system,” the “legal fiction,” the scaffolding around the building under construction that is corrupt!

    To correct what is believed to be Constitutional errors, many have believed and do presently believe WE must use the Constitution to correct them. There can be no doubt that WE the People are clearly upset!

    In the last presidential election (2008), an entire campaign was devoted to change. Was this slogan or mantra for change, in line with what was and is, on the minds of WE the People?

    In 2008, the US population was approximately 304,000,000

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

    Out of 304 million, 231,229,580 were of legal voting age. Out of those of legal age to vote, 132,618,580 were registered voters and participated in the election as determined by the votes counted. This was about *56% of the population that turned out to vote. 56% is a clear majority though not an overwhelming majority. Still, it was the largest turnout to vote in forty years, since 1968, when 60.2% of voter turnout occurred.

    *Source 2008 election results:

    http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

    In the 2008 the presidential election, two primary candidates emerged to capture the majority of all votes cast.

    66,882,230 **(53%) Democrat for president
    58,343,671 **(46%) Republican for president
    125,225,901 99%

    ** Source:

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

    There were other candidates on the ballot and those that were written in. But all total, about 56% of WE the voting People said with our votes, WE want change. But for this change, WE see of all the votes cast, the voters were divided almost 50/50. But what about the other 44% of the population, old enough to vote that did not? They too, would be close to 50% and this shows further division between those which exercised their right to vote and those which exercised their right not to vote. Why are WE the People so divided?

    I’m sure there were legitimate reasons why some could not vote, but there were many that chose not to vote. Of those that chose not to vote, they could be placed into two groups.

    1. They don’t believe their votes make any difference (see #2 below)
    2. They just don’t care. (see #1 above)

    WE the People are some of the most charitable people on earth. WE are a mix of many people and could be likened to mutts, but mutts are often considered to be favorable and lovable. For the most part WE are a good and caring people that want to just live in peace and prosperity. WE want to live OUR own lives, make OUR own decisions and be left alone, free from governmental interference or at least limited interference. WE embrace change sometimes, but quite often WE resist change. If things are just OK or if they are working out nicely, why change? But when pushed and shoved, agitated and threatened and yes, even fearful, WE become energized and unified to change.

    WE are somewhat apathetic and often feel powerless to change anything. Some believe the only thing they can do is to cast a vote for change and for the most part, it is to choose just one or the other, a person or a party. Sometimes many believe the only choice WE have is for “the lesser of two evils.” OUR decisions are sometimes made after personal, careful and prolonged research. What influences US is often the mainstream media, a great campaign, a particular party and personalities, and yes, even race, color and sex.

    But WE have come to not always trust these influences.

    Each of US to some degree or another has developed an ‘entitlement mentality.’ WE feel or believe WE are entitled, owed or due something. And WE think it should all be coming from the very government, WE have come to not trust. That’s makes us angry too! So there is a growing need; an intense mood among US that WE ‘have to’ CHANGEWE ‘have to’ make CHANGES!

    People usually bond together over a common goal or a common enemy. Many perceive OUR own government as a common enemy. Reflecting these attitudes, WE saw the emergence of Fox News, Glen Beck, the 9.12 Project, Tea Parties and the list continues with some new group or organization being formed almost every day. Most recently to answer the Tea Party, there now is The Coffee Party. There is a lot of division among US as seen in ‘them’ and ‘they’ instead of WE the People. It is clear however that WE are growing anxious, disappointed, frustrated and angry; afraid of what is happening in OUR country. OUR passions are involved, but passion without reason can become a very dangerous thing. Simply put, WE often wait until the last minute to change. At the last minute WE are frustrated, angry and the fear of loss becomes a motivating factor.

    The greatest thing WE the People can do if WE really want to change, is to first become well informed. This is nothing new. The writer of OUR Declaration of Independence wrote:

    “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

    -Thomas Jefferson-

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is all I am endeavoring to do with this post and with this blog, to try and educate. And the whole purpose of education is to take some form of ACTION! If you care and if you knew about this, wouldn’t you share this with me and with all of USWE the People? I believe and I must believe; I trust and I must trust; I hope and I must hope that you would!

    WE must know and understand what is going on and WE must know and understand what motivates US to change. WE must recognize our human frailties and that therein lay the opportunity to exploit US. Fear motivates. Quite often, the fear of loss is greater than our love of victory. Could not this fear be used against US?

    “…the State ‘has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'”

    Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his book, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ (1959, page 144)

    In 1847, the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel’s theory (Hegelian dialectic) to back up their economic theory of communism. In the 21st century, this thinking affects our entire social and political structure. This theory is a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to a predetermined solution. Simply seen:

    Have a crisis, produce a crisis or make US think WE have a crisis + the government comes to the rescue = solution.

    But WE the People have lost or are losing control; OUR liberty in the end!

    If WE do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes OUR perceptions of the world, then WE do not know how WE are unknowingly helping to implement this vision. WE become as Stalin called westerners parroting the false successes of communism, “useful idiots.” As long as we are trapped inside, WE cannot see outside of the trap!

    So OUR passions swell, OUR tempers flair, OUR frustrations grow exponentially; WE become restless, apathetic or just acquiesce and take what ever WE can get from OUR benefactor, the government. Basically WE feel powerless and if not concerned – WE are afraid.

    So there are others which understand these traits of OUR human weakness, the lust for power and the desire for control over USWE the People. Many have called and do call for the stoppage of this madness and the removal of this corrupt system, by using OUR Constitution.

    Article V of the U.S. Constitution, states:

    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

    According to Article V there are only two ways that amendments can be proposed to the Constitution: (1) by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress; or (2) on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, Congress is supposed to call a convention for proposing Amendments. This second method has been considered and is being considered at this very moment, but it has never been used!

    Following the Constitution above, after amendments are proposed by either method, they then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, or by three-fourths of special state conventions.

    According to Article I Section 4 of the Constitution Congress decides which ratification process will be used.

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

    So to have Congress call a convention, 2/3 of the present 50 states would have to apply for such a convention. There are some which believe that more than a sufficient number of states have already applied and that Congress has denied the applications and refused to call for a convention. There are arguments as to what this convention should be called. Some refer to it as an Article V Convention, a Convention to Propose Amendments, a Constitutional Congress and a Constitutional Convention. The last two are said to be distinguished from the first two and their purpose is to do away with the Constitution exclusively and replace it with something else. But the Constitution does not make any such separation or distinction. Neither does it define how many amendments can be made, what they are to be or how long the convention could last.

    I have titled this post, ‘Convening a Constitutional Congress.’ I hold to the accuracy of this title. An Article V Convention is merely in reference to a convention as to its location in article V of the Constitution. The words “The Congress,” clearly refers to the national Legislative Branch of the central or Federal Government. By definition, the word “congress” can also mean:

    A formal meeting or assembly of representatives for the discussion, arrangement, or promotion of some matter of common interest.

    or

    The act of coming together; an encounter; meeting.

    Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010

    If the states apply in sufficient numbers, ‘The Congress” is supposed to call for a convention. This convention would be constitutional as it is in the Constitution and its specific purpose is to propose amendments to the Constitution. This convention would be ‘a congress’ (a coming together) and the delegates would convene it.

    On the surface, this may appear to be an answer to our many problems. If WE could have such a convention, then WE the People could strike down UN-constitutional amendments, propose new ones and return the republic, its power and control, back to USWE the People! That sounds great, but unfortunately, it could turn out completely different than what WE the People had intended! Although the states must ratify the proposals to make them amendments and therefore then, becoming part of the Constitution, it is the Legislatures of the required number of states which ratify and not the people, even though WE elected them to their perspective office. Would it not be possible to have the convention propose bad amendments? Would it not be possible for the state legislatures to ratify bad amendments or not ratify good amendments? Is it not possible that amendments proposed and ratified would not be what WE the People want?

    You may have heard or think that the states can control the subject of any convention. In truth, no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention! Once elected, those Convention delegates possess at least equal power as the U.S. Congress itself;  if this was not accurate, they would not be able to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution!

    To further OUR research on these matters, WE must look towards organizations and people that would like to have a Convention convene that also, have in their by-laws and their intentions, to do away with the Constitution entirely. Look also for drafts of what has been proposed to replace it with! One thing will clearly emerge and it is once again, division among US. There would division among those that would want to make right and proper changes to the Constitution and those that would make improper changes or even try to replace it. By any manner, the power to accept the proper number of applications to call for a convention rests with Congress. Question – do WE trust OUR Congress?

    WE need only to look at recent polls. Congress is perceived to be mostly unfavorable in their performance, in conducting OUR business, by a vast majority of USWE the People. An even more recent event can illustrate this mistrust.

    In January of 2010, in a long held Democratic state, the State of Massachusetts, in a decades held senatorial seat, by also the Democratic Party, was up for grabs.

    The importance of this seat, the power of US, WE the People and the power of just 1 of WE, cannot be emphasized enough!

    Ultimately, the decision was made by the People of the State of Massachusetts, but there was a concerted effort by many from outside of the state, to influence this election. But the people of the state chose to replace one party with another. Why did they do that?

    Was it solely for the candidate or the party that they chose? Was it because of outside influence or for some other reason?

    WE the People are not stupid! WE may have for a long time seemed to have been asleep at the wheel. WE may appear to have been lulled to sleep by the news or entertainment, purported to be news and perceived to be biased or just plainly, not trusted. It may look as if WE don’t care or are more concerned about me, myself, and I. All outward signs might seem like WE are divided against him, her, them and they, instead of united for WE the People, but WE are not stupid. This recent vote clearly demonstrated that WE the people or specifically the People of Massachusetts, wanted to unbalance the government and prevent a super-majority in the U.S. Senate! A newly elected senator untried, inexperienced and as of yet, unproven, does not guarantee any results. Neither does the switch from one party for another. But this vote for 1 senator, clearly demonstrates the intelligence of The People, their growing concerns and for the moment, that just one person could affect the entire country!

    When WE the People are moved by being well informed, WE will act. When moved by OUR passions WE also sometimes react. But when it comes to calling for a convention to propose amendments, WE must be well informed and WE must NOT act for just any reason or react solely from any passion!! Even if WE trust those well intentioned that apply, and the Congress to call for this action, and the delegates to the convention and the Legislatures to ratify the proposals making them amendments to OUR Constitution, it  does not address the real problem which a corrupt “system” that surrounds it.

    Congress controls or believes it controls the process. This is not to suggest that such a convention is neither constitutional nor that it should not work; could not work. It only means that in our present-day, it will not work, because it does not address the corrupt system which is commingled with OUR republic. Simply put, the issue is, power and control. A simple understanding of the laws of motion will explain it. A moving object requires some measure of force to move it in a certain direction. An equal force against it will merely stop its movement. To change its direction, a greater and opposite force is required. Power and control only understands power and control. It only allows equal power and control, like changing a person or party. But power and control only recognizes greater power and control!

    To be sure, the original intention of a convention as a manner to propose amendments was to correct abuses of power in government.

    Applications denied by Congress to call for a convention, could be brought before the courts, but the Judiciary Branch of government is also infected with the same corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” that I repeatedly refer to.

    WE the People according to the First Amendment, have the right, “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” But in fact, all government on the national, state and local levels is infected with this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” WE the People are infected with it.

    James Madison is often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.” It is only through his journals that WE have any recollections, records, or almost any information of what transpired over the times in which the secret Constitutional Congress met.

    Madison even supported a more centralized government. Evidence suggests he even favored a Convention to propose amendments. But in a letter to G.L. Tuberville, November 2, 1788, Madison wrote:

    “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress…. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric…. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America.”

    -James Madison-

    Note: Madison’s quote above was in reference to certain states that wanted to hold another convention, before the Constitution that had been proposed, had been ratified by the states.

    Those were his sentiments of the times in 1788. What about “the present temper” today? OUR “more perfect union” had elements of corruption or the potential to corrupt, even before the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

    The words I have quoted are from the same Constitution that Madison took an active role in making, directly participated in, believed in and also saw in it, its potential to become corrupted.

    The words that I have quoted from OUR Constitution are what it says. What it says is what it means! So the issue at hand is how it is interpreted. This interpretation is part of the corrupt, corrupting, and corruptible “system” that I continually refer to in this blog. For this reason alone, it is this “system” that must be first torn down and ripped out of OUR republic and then a convention would work and more importantly, would not be necessary. If Congress were performing their constitutional duties in listening to the states and the state Legislatures were performing their constitutional duties in ratifying according to the will of WE the People whom they are supposed to be representing and serving, a convention would not be necessary to implement.

    Think of it like this. Imagine holding up what looks like the Constitution. In all actuality it is not the real deal, it is only a fake. This is what the corrupt “system” is looking at, not the real deal WE think WE are demanding to be adhered to. WE must get rid of the fake and refer to the ‘real-deal.’ To do this, WE must get rid of the fake, which is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”

    Today is later than, WE might think!

    All the present or past efforts for Congress to call for a convention to propose amendments will not work, not that it should not work or even that it could not work, but that it will not work. It does not address the issue at hand,which is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” which Congress in this regard, believes they have the constitutional authority to control. A face-off with Congress that holds this attitude is like trying to put a band aid on an artery that has been cut. Besides the Constitution, there exists today, 100’s if not thousands of standing executive or presidential orders and federal laws which affect, effect and infect US, WE the People. Then there are those laws on the books of OUR several states and local governments. On a practical basis, a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution will not work in correcting all of these. Even tomorrow morning, if Congress received applications from all 50 states, all written in the same perfect and consistent language and subject matter, and dated the same day, there is no guarantee that Congress would call for a convention. And if Congress did, a convention would still not, on a practical side, be able to address the whole problem, which is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.”

    The effects of this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system,” reach from all three branches of the federal government, to the several states and to you and me, US, WE the People. This is not a conspiracy; it is a corrupt “system.” There is no single person, persons or party to blame, at least I am not about to lay blame on any person, persons or party and not even one or all branches of government. All are affected, effected and infected with this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” It is not the fault of OUR Constitution or of US, WE the People. A convention is neither the final answer needed nor that which I have promised, as to the restoration of our rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” WE must continue to see how it is a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible system that MUST BE FIRST REMOVED! It is cancerous!

    OUR republic has been veiled, cloaked, woven into, saturated with and commingled; diluted and polluted by a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” It is “legal fiction.” It is legalese or legal speak, aptly illustrated by a recent example in our lifetime. Which Rhodes Scholar, lawyer, former governor and president, in response to an question, said the following?

    “It all depends, on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    This “system” must be removed. To do this, WE first have to be able to see it, when it happened and HOW to tear it down and rip it out of OUR republic!

    I have promised and will keep my promise. I promise you that what WE can do about all of this and HOW to do it is coming! It is really quite simple. It will not take forever or even a lifetime. It will only take a small amount of time and your direct participation. It may be difficult, but WE can do it IF, WE the People so will to do it. Do WE so will?

    What may seem as insurmountable odds in regaining control of our liberties may appear hopeless, but there is an answer! Stay tuned here as we continue.

    Next Time – ‘Hope that the present circumstances will change and the will of WE the People will be implemented?

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different.

    Ask not what your country can do for you

    or what you can do for your country,

    but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


    1 of WE,

    Dahni
    An Amer-I-Can eagle

    Next Post Hope for the Best?
    Previous Post ‘The Commerce Clause,’ part 4 of 4 (conclusion)
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    Un-founding the U.S.A., springing the trap

    January 29, 2010

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 1/29/10

    all rights reserved

    HOW can WE the People regain control of Our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have been delving into what won’t work in order to find what will work. So far:

    The List (simplified)

    1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

    2.   The 9/12 Project?

    3.   Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? WE are here

    WE are still dealing with challenging the Commerce Clause. Before the series concludes WE must first understand ten years in OUR history when history was re-written.

    Today – Un-founding the U.S.A., springing the trap (conclusion)

    Springing the Trap

    After the conclusion of the Un-Civil Conflict in 1865 and with Congress back at work screwing over WE the People with amendments 13, 14 and 15 up to 1870, there was a lot of work that needed to be done, to physically reconstruct the country.

    Just in case you think socialism or communism is cool consider this. At the conclusion of this terrible conflict, there was no wealth to distribute to the poor or to them which had not or little. Pretty much no one had anything to distribute to anyone! If I had it, I could have given to you or you could have just taken a chicken, but my hen house was destroyed. I could have had lots of money in the bank, but the bank was burnt to the ground. I could have stuffed a lot of extra money in my mattress, but my house was blown up. Do you get my point?

    Both the North and the South were reeling in great losses of life, property, resources and finances. And this included even the wealthy and those of means. What was needed to re-build was capital – money and a lot of it. Where was it to come from? The simple answer was banks and from those who amassed great fortunes in loaning money to both the North and the South during all the years of the struggle. Some of these banks, bankers and people of wealth were living in this country and loaning money to both sides! So what, it’s just business right? But a lot of money was needed. Where else could it come from? World banks and foreign investors would come to the rescue of the United States, but not without collateral and compounded interest to secure those loans and to ‘sweeten’ the deals for them.

    Behind closed doors, secret deals were made. Ultimately, the “good faith of the United States,” would mean nothing and the interest and the loans would be paid by WE the People. Banks just don’t loan money to anyone. They take calculated risks and those risks are offset by collateral and the means to repay the loan. Just because you have a history of repaying loans and on time, or you are a nice person, or a country, all of that means about nothing to a bank. Banks deal with contracts, agreements and legal documents as the means to re-coup at least the principle amount of the loan, should you default on the loan and with further iron-clad documents, which allow them the future interest payments on the principal, even if you defaulted. They could also go after your heirs.

    A deal is a deal and they are entitled to regain the principal and interest until satisfied. That’s like buying a house for 100 thousand dollars and paying it off in 30 years for 500,000 thousand dollars, SWEET! Sweet to the recipients that is. Most banks never want the loans to EVER be repaid. Why not? INTEREST! And compounded interest, what’s the formula there? Interest is determined by the risks involved in recovering the debt, how much they can get and what is allowed by law. Law, what law? Corporate law of the United States, Inc.

    So, in 1871, the 41st Congress passed a bill which would incorporate the District of Columbia. No big deal right as this area at the time was just about 10 square miles. The founders of OUR country named and chose Washington in the District of Columbia, as the location for the capitol of the United States. And why not, it was a territory and not a state or else it would have been favorable to a certain state over all the others. But in 1871, a loophole was exploited.

    CHAPTER 62, 1871 16 United States Statutes at Large 419 FORTY FIRST CONGRESS SESSION III . CHAPTER 62, 1871 CHAP. LXII. —

    “An act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia .

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.”

    The language of this act provides that the government of the District (the Federal Government) is a corporation, municipal in nature, but still a corporation. Furthermore, District citizens (United States citizens – U. S. citizens) will now be subject to corporation law as well as the laws of the Republic. See, I told you that the districts set up in 1861 and specifically by law in 1863, included all the former and once sovereign and component commonwealth states in the country. Therefore, the District of Columbia, Inc. became the seat of the United States, Inc.

    Corporate law is private law even though the corporation is municipal. Generally we are led to believe that these corporate laws are laws of the people, because they have came from Congress… they are not, they are private laws and can only be applied by contract. That is by our active consent!

    Have you signed or entered into any such contract? Oh, OUR representatives and senators acting on OUR behalf signed the contract for US right? Right and Wrong!! It is true they voted for this and therefore in essence signed the contract, but in order for a contract to be valid, it must be witnessed to and signed by ALL parities contracted by and with.

    Enfranchisement

    Shortly after incorporating, the United States municipal corporation enfranchised its citizens.

    “Enfranchisement. The act of making free (as from slavery); giving a franchise or freedom to; investiture with privileges or capacities of freedom, or municipal or political liberty. Conferring the privilege of voting upon classes of persons who have not previously possessed such. See also Franchise.” – [Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

    Notice that the Enfranchised citizen is granted municipal liberty. Not liberty as it was known and practiced in the Republic, but liberty as defined by the municipal Liberty:

    1. Freedom from an arbitrary or despotic government.
    2. Freedom from external or foreign rule.
    3. Freedom from captivity, confinement, etc.

    – Random House Dictionary-

    At Section 8, the Constitution states that “The Congress shall have power to… exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States…,” creating the District of Columbia, what we know as Washington, District of Columbia.

    How many of US realize this creates a jurisdiction over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority? WE were just told this in the language of the Constitution, but did WE understand it? If not, thank you department of education.

    And furthermore, do WE understand that this jurisdiction is not inclusive, to the Republic of the United States of America, it is EXCLUSIVE.

    This means that the jurisdiction that is the District of Columbia is a FOREIGN jurisdiction to that of the Republic of the United States of America.

    What this was talking about was not a state, but a former territory of the United States, now called a district, the District of Columbia or D.C. Furthermore, its power did not exceed beyond “ten miles square.” So how then does this jurisdiction exceed beyond the ten square miles? Look no further than the redistricting in 1861 and the Conscription Act of 1863, for therein is the answer. To understand this, I am reminded of a Biblical custom.

    According to Judaic law, on the Sabbath day, certain things were prohibited such as, no servile work was to be performed and animals were not to be used in the performance of servile work etc. Sabbath law even addressed travel. This is seen in the Bible as, “A Sabbath’s day’s journey.” This was a specific distance that one was allowed to travel from their property on the Sabbath Day, including their return trip home. Its intent was to allow the people to travel on the Sabbath to attend the synagogue or the temple. To circumvent or get around this law, a loophole was found and used. For example, just throw a bunch of pebbles from your property into a bag. At the boundary of the legal traveling distance on the Sabbath, all you had to do was drop a pebble (your property) and then you could just keep going in this manner, all throughout the Sabbath or until you ran out of pebbles. Of course the return trip was just matter of retracing your steps, from one of your pebbles (your property) to the next until you got back home.  Pretty silly is it not, but technically legal.

    So here, the constitution was not technically changed, it would just now include all the districts of 1861 and 1863. Then it became corporate law in a municipal setting by Congress in 1871.

    So the corporation had jurisdiction over all the states. It just needed to include all the citizens. Ooops, that’s right, I forgot, this was already done prior to 1871 in 1866 and completed in 1868.

    AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    And there WE have it. Even though I live in a once sovereign and component commonwealth state (New York), and was born in a sovereign component commonwealth state (Missouri) until 1861, 1863 & 1871 specifically, and though the physical boundaries have not changed, I am residing presently according to this act of Congress, in a sub-corporation (New York State, Inc.), under the jurisdiction of the United States, Inc.

    Every single amendment to the Constitution since 1861, have all be UN-constitutional! Talk about treason, what was this act of congress in 1871? It overthrew (fictitiously of course) the government of WE the People and replaced it with an EXCLUSIVE (foreign) corporation.

    Have you ever held or seen either a silver or a gold certificate? Those used to be on all the paper money used in the United States as required in the original constitution. Paper money is a ‘bearer bond’ or instrument used for the exchange of goods and services and for the payment of debt, public or private. Upon demand it could be exchanged for silver or gold. Did you know that during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, owning gold was illegal? Did you know that was lifted by president Gerald Ford, but decades later? Did you know that silver and gold certificates were replaced with Federal Reserve notes? Can anyone tell me who owns the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Reserve Banks? Well I can tell you this that a Federal Reserve note is still a bearer bond or instrument. It was thought that if you had some in your pocket, you are saying that you accept the contract of the United States, Inc. BUT a contract is invalid unless all parties are informed of the specifics of said contract and have signed it, knowingly! Did you know? Did you sign the contract or was it your representative? Sorry, but they cannot sign it for you!

    So what am I saying here? This is all legal fiction. It is like someone threw stolen property on your property and the police found it, so you are not only guilty of possessing stolen property, you are guilty of theft. This is like living inside the ‘Matrix’ or falling through the rabbit hole, in Alice’s Wonderland. It is fantasy, fake, bogus, false, not real – it does not exist! Unfortunately, inside this make-believe U.S.A., people get hurt, die, starve, live in fear, have no opportunity and even worse than all of that, just exist having given up the right to question, to think, to try and to care, as long as WE are fed and taken care of, for surely WE are entitled?

    But each 1 of WE have the right, the God-given right; the unalienable right to choose for ourselves. I don’t want anything from the United States, Inc. All that it has is all that it has taken and is taking from WE the People. I want the opportunity to stand up as a man upon my own two feet in my own boots, to fail or to succeed according to my abilities. May God give me the courage to cry aloud like Patrick Henry did, “Give me Liberty or give me death!”

    What may seem as insurmountable odds in regaining control of our liberties may appear hopeless, but there is an answer! Stay tuned here as we continue.

    Next Time –  ‘Challenging the Commerce Clause’ Part 4 of 4 (conclusion) FINALLY!   🙂

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different.

    Ask not what your country can do for you

    or what you can do for your country,

    but what can WE do for each other!”

    1 of WE,

    Dahni

    An Amer-I-Can eagle

    Next Post – Challenge the Commerce Clause? part 4 (conclusion)
    Previous Post – UN-founding the U.S.A., setting the trap
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    Un-founding the U.S.A., setting the trap

    January 28, 2010

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 1/28/10

    all rights reserved

    HOW can WE the People regain control of Our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?WE have been delving into what won’t work in order to find what will work. So far:

    The List (simplified)

    1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

    2.   The 9/12 Project?

    3.   Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? This is where WE are

    WE are still dealing with challenging the Commerce Clause. Before the series concludes, WE must first understand ten years in OUR history, when history was re-written.

    Today – Un-founding the U.S.A., setting the trap

    Setting the Trap

    Following Lee’s surrender in 1865, functions of the government needed to be restored and to seat or re-seat into Congress, the members of its body from those states once a part of the Confederacy. The appearance of business as usual in Congress supposedly engaged in doing the peoples’ business continued. However, since Congress adjourned without a day and were compelled by the president to reconvene, there has never been since, a legitimate legislative branch of government. One of the first acts of Congress was to amend the Constitution. All amendments from the 13th – 27th have all not only been passed by illegitimate Congresses, ratified by acquiescing non-sovereign and non-component commonwealth states, the have all been wholly unconstitutional, despite their intentions or affects.

    One of these amendments, the first following the conflict of the states was the 13th amendment. This amendment made slavery and involuntary servitude illegal unless as a punishment to individuals convicted of a crime. Cool, slaves are freed right? But there should have never been slaves in the first place as, “all men (and women) are created equal…” But WOW, this really sounds great right? Wrong! Read the amendment!! Here is part of it:

    “[Slavery ect.] shall [not] exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

    AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

    The key words above in red are: subject to their jurisdictionOn the surface, what appears to be the most important aspect of this amendment is freeing the slaves, but the emphasis is on the jurisdiction of enforcing this amendment.

    More Bait

    According to the original Constitution, citizens of the states were defined as seen in:

    Article IV Section 2.

    “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and

    Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

    WE the People were each citizens of our perspective state and given the privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several States. WE were not given liberty, for that is part of what WE the People already had and have, but privileges were extended to each individual among the “several states.” WE the People can visit and move to and reside in any state WE choose. But in 1866, Congress passed and the states ratified in1868, another amendment to the Constitution.

    Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    WOW, doesn’t this sound great? WE are not just citizens of our individual state, WE are citizens of the United States. We’re really covered and protected now right? Wrong! This amendment defines a new class of citizenship and this citizenship is under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Even More Bait

    Section 1.

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—“

    AMENDMENT XV

    Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

    Isn’t this special? Now every race and color or those previously under forced servitude, could vote as citizens of the United States. (see amendment 14 above). Again, the emphasis here is on citizens of the United States!

    Sorry ladies and those 18 years of age, you would have to wait until the 20th century to be considered citizens, persons or people of the United States and get to vote.

    So from 1861-1863 the trap was constructed.

    From 1863-1870, the bait was set. By the way, WE the People were and are the bait, just in case you did not get that already.

    The trap just needed to be sprung.

    If WE the People are the bait, what was this trap constructed for? What is its purpose? What is its intention? What was it constructed for, baited for and designed to capture? The simple answer is power and control. Power and control over what? Everything WE the People have, would ever have and that includes our children’s, children’s children in perpetuity or forever. Who would control this? The United States would control WE the people. Excuse me, isn’t this the exact opposite of what the original Constitution said and meant? Yes! Our inalienable rights among these – Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness make US WE the People that grant limited powers to the government, OF the People, By the People and For the People. Government is OUR servant, WE do NOT serve the government!

    The trap has been constructed and baited. All that remains is, for it to be sprung. It was!

    Next Time –  ‘Un-founding the U.S.A., springing the trap

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different.

    Ask not what your country can do for you

    or what you can do for your country,

    but what can WE do for each other!”

    1 of WE,

    Dahni

    An Amer-I-Can eagle

    Next Post – UN-founding the U.S.A., springing the trap
    Previous Post – UN-founding the U.S.A., building the trap
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    The Commerce Clause part 3 of 4

    October 24, 2009

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 10/24/09

    all rights reserved

    HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?WE have been delving into what won’t work in order to find what will work. So far:

    The List (simplified)

    1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

    2.   The 9/12 Project?

    3.   Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – This is where WE are

    Last time WE looked at some of the background to this case which challenged the Commerce Clause and what was going on in the country and the world when it was decided.

    Today: ‘The Commerce Clause’ – part 3 of 4

    Many strict constitutionalists believe the Supreme Court decisions in ‘Wickard VS. Filburn’ were unconstitutional. What was more than a mere interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘commerce’ begs the question:

    How did the federal government not just have the power to ‘regulate commerce,’ but command jurisdiction over the states?

    Unfortunately, by 1942 when his case found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, all but one justice had been appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Justice Owen Josephus Roberts, a Republican, had been appointed by President Herbert Hoover. The Court was clearly in Roosevelt’s corner philosophically. The court’s unanimous decision in this case reflected New Deal logic.

    I have now invoked the precious name or the precarious name (depending on your position), of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or FDR. What did he have to do with the Commerce Clause, other than that he was president when the case of ‘Wickard VS. Filburn’ was decided in 1942?

    FDRFranklin Delano Roosevelt, in his acceptance speech, declared:

    Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth… I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people… This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.”

    Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), often referred to by his initials FDR, was the 32nd President of the United States. He was a central figure of the 20th century during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war. Elected to four terms in office, he served from 1933 to 1945 and is the only U.S. president to have served more than two terms.

    The election campaign was conducted under the shadow of the Great Depression in the United States, and the new alliances which it created. Roosevelt and the Democratic Party mobilized the expanded ranks of the poor as well as organized labor, ethnic minorities, urbanites, and Southern whites, crafting the New Deal coalition. During the campaign, Roosevelt said: “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people,” coining a slogan that was later adopted for his legislative program as well as his new coalition.

    His inauguration on March 4, 1933 occurred in the middle of a bank panic, when all or almost all of the banking capital in the country was wiped out.  To this was the backdrop for his famous words: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a United States government owned corporation was created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. In 1934, the Securities and Exchange Commission was created to regulate Wall Street. Presidential, Executive Order 6102 made all privately held gold of American citizens, property of the US Treasury. This gold, confiscation by executive order was argued to be unconstitutional, but Roosevelt’s executive order asserts authority to do so, was based on the War Time Powers Act of 1917. Gold bullion remained illegal for Americans to own until President Ford rescinded the order in 1974.

    The Social Security Act, established Social Security and promised economic security for the elderly, the poor and the sick. While Roosevelt balanced the “regular” budget, the emergency budget was funded by debt, which increased to 40.9% in 1936, and then remained level until World War II, at which time it escalated rapidly.

    Withholding Taxes were introduced in1943.

    Second term, 1937–1941

    FDR may be the father of ‘taking it to the people’ when support in congress and/or the courts seem unavailable. This he did when introducing his family-like atmospheres and comfort setting radio broadcasts, called ‘fireside chats.’

    Fireside Chat on Reorganization of the Judiciary, March 9, 1937

    “That is not only my accusation. It is the accusation of most distinguished justices of the present Supreme Court. I have not the time to quote to you all the language used by dissenting justices in many of these cases. But in the case holding the Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional, for instance, Chief Justice Hughes said in a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion was “a departure from sound principles,” and placed “an unwarranted limitation upon the commerce clause.”

    What is my proposal? It is simply this: whenever a judge or justice of any federal court has reached the age of seventy and does not avail himself of the opportunity to retire on a pension, a new member shall be appointed by the president then in office, with the approval, as required by the Constitution, of the Senate of the United States.

    That plan has two chief purposes. By bringing into the judicial system a steady and continuing stream of new and younger blood, I hope, first, to make the administration of all federal justice, from the bottom to the top, speedier and, therefore, less costly; secondly, to bring to the decision of social and economic problems younger men who have had personal experience and contact with modern facts and circumstances under which average men have to live and work. This plan will save our national Constitution from hardening of the judicial arteries.

    The number of judges to be appointed would depend wholly on the decision of present judges now over seventy, or those who would subsequently reach the age of seventy.

    If, for instance, any one of the six justices of the Supreme Court now over the age of seventy should retire as provided under the plan, no additional place would be created. Consequently, although there never can be more than fifteen, there may be only fourteen, or thirteen, or twelve. And there may be only nine.”

    http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/

    The Supreme Court was the main obstacle to Roosevelt’s programs during his second term, overturning many of his programs. In particular in 1935, the Court unanimously ruled that the National Recovery Act (NRA), was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president. Roosevelt stunned Congress in early 1937 by proposing a law allowing him to appoint five new justices, a persistent infusion of new blood.” – FDR

    This “court packing” plan ran into intense political opposition from his own party, led by Vice President Garner, since it seemed to upset the separation of powers and give the President control over the Court.

    Third term, 1941–1945

    The military buildup spurred economic growth, and perhaps more so than any policy implemented since 1929. Perhaps during no other time in history was it more clear than during WW II that war is good for business, for the economy and for jobs! By 1941, unemployment had fallen to under 1 million.

    On December 6, 1941, President Roosevelt read an intercepted Japanese message and told his assistant Harry Hopkins, “This means war.” He never warned Admiral Husband Kimmel or Lt. Gen. Walter Short after reception of the message before the Pearl Harbor attack.

    On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, destroying or damaging 16 warships, including most of the fleet’s battleships, and killing more than 2,400 American military personnel and civilians.

    “Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”

    FDR

    No attack by Japan on the U.S. was a guarantee the U.S. would declare war on Germany. In such a case, American public anger would be directed at Japan, not Germany, just as it happened. The Tripartite Pact (Germany, Italy, Japan) called for each to aid one another in case of attack; Japan could not reasonably claim America had attacked Japan if it attacked first. For instance, Germany had been at war with the UK since 1939, and with the U.S.S.R. since June 1941 without Japanese assistance. There was a serious, if low-level, naval war going on in the Atlantic between Germany and the U.S. Navy in the summer of 1941, in any case. Nevertheless, it was only Hitler’s declaration of war, unforced by the Axis treaty, several days after the Pearl Harbor attack that brought the U.S. into the European war.

    The U.S. government has had ten official inquiries into the attack – the inquiry by Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox (1941), the Roberts Commission (1941–42), the Hart Inquiry (1944), the Army Pearl Harbor Board (1944), the Naval Court of Inquiry (1944), the Hewitt investigation, the Clarke investigation, the Congressional Inquiry (1945–46) and the top-secret inquiry by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, authorized by Congress and carried out by Henry Clausen (the Clausen Inquiry) (1946). The tenth inquiry, the Thurmond-Spence Hearing, took place in April 1995. The Dorn Report resulted from this tenth hearing.[1]10 Commissions investigating the attack on Pearl Hrbor including many conspiracy theories. Having read it it in its entirety, I am satisfied with the Roberts Commission. January 23. 1942, being most likely the most reliable as it was the first conducted so close to the event and the freshness in the mind of the witnesses. The first Roberts Commission was a presidentially-appointed commission formed in December 1941, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in 1941, to investigate and report the facts relating to the attack. The commission was headed by US Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen Josephus Roberts, and for this reason it was known as the Roberts Commission. The commission found the commanders of Pearl Harbor, Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, guilty of ‘dereliction of duty’. The Commission presented their findings to Congress January 28, 1942

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html

    July 26, 1941 – Roosevelt freezes Japanese assets in United States and suspends relations.

    Dec 7, 1941 – Japanese bomb Pearl HarborHitler issues the Night and Fog decree.

    Dec 8, 1941 – United States and Britain declare war on Japan.

    Dec 11, 1941 – Germany declares war on the United States.

    Jan 1, 1942 – Declaration of the United Nations signed by 26 Allied nations.

    Jan 13, 1942 – Germans begin a U-boat offensive along east coast of USA.

    Jan 20, 1942 – SS Leader Heydrich holds the Wannsee Conference to coordinate the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question.”

    Jan 26, 1942 – First American forces arrive in Great Britain.

    February 19, 1942 – Executive Order 9066, signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 191942, allowed authorized military commanders to designate “military areas” at their discretion, “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” These “exclusion zones”, unlike the “alien enemy” roundups, were applicable to anyone that an authorized military commander might choose, whether citizen or non-citizen. Eventually such zones would include parts of both the East and West Coasts, totaling about 1/3 of the country by area. Unlike the subsequent detainment and internment programs that would come to be applied to large numbers of Japanese Americans, detentions and restrictions directly under this Individual Exclusion Program were placed primarily on individuals of German or Italian ancestry, including American citizens

    In June – Mass murder of Jews by gassing begins at Auschwitz.

    June, 4-7, 1942 – Battle of Midway

    June 25, 1942 – Eisenhower arrives in London.

    July 9, 1942 – Germans begin a drive toward Stalingrad in the USSR.

    July 22, 1942 – First deportations from the Warsaw Ghetto to concentration camps; Treblinka extermination camp opened.

    Aug 7, 1942 – British General Bernard Montgomery takes command of Eighth Army in North Africa.

    Aug 12, 1942 – Stalin and Churchill meet in Moscow.

    Aug 17, 1942 – First all-American air attack in Europe.

    Aug 23, 1942 – Massive German air raid on Stalingrad.

    Sept 2, 1942 – Rommel driven back by Montgomery in the Battle of Alam Halfa.

    Sept 13, 1942 – Battle of Stalingrad begins.

    Oct 5, 1942 – A German eyewitness observes SS mass murder.

    Oct 18, 1942 – Hitler orders the execution of all captured British commandos.

    Nov 1, 1942 – Operation Supercharge (Allies break Axis lines at El Alamein).

    Nov 8, 1942 – Operation Torch begins (U.S. invasion of North Africa).

    Novemeber 9, 1942Monday – the case which challenged the Commerce Clause – Petitioner: Wickard VS. Respondent. The case was decided in favor of the government. Right spack-dab in the middle of all these events which led up to this date and that which was to follow, this little heeded and still virtually unknown decision, set the stage for more government jurisdiction over state rights and individual rights. WE the people and the people of the world were otherwise occupied, with WW II; not the courts.

    Nov 11, 1942 – Germans and Italians invade unoccupied Vichy France.

    Nov 19, 1942 – Soviet counter-offensive at Stalingrad begins.

    Dec 2, 1942 – Professor Enrico Fermi sets up an atomic reactor in Chicago.

    Dec 16, 1942 – Soviets defeat Italian troops on the River Don in the USSR.

    Dec 17, 1942 – British Foreign Secretary Eden tells the British House of Commons of mass executions of Jews by Nazis; U.S. declares those crimes will be avenged.

    Dec 31, 1942 – Battle of the Barents Sea between German and British ships.

    Manhattan Engineer District (MED),

    MED refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.[1] Secret installations all under the jurisdiction or control of the Federal Government, sprung up all over the country to test and to produce the atomic bomb which was dropped on Japan at the order of President Truman, the next president after FDR.

    Fourth term and death, 1945

    The rapid expansion of government programs that occurred during Roosevelt’s term redefined the role of the government in the United States, and Roosevelt’s advocacy of government social programs was instrumental in redefining liberalism for coming generations.

    This is not an exposé or a scathing attack on Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The truth is, I and most likely no one knows what was or was not in his heart. When people are in pain enough, they want and need comfort and will often accept it from anyplace; from anything and from anyone they believe, can get it for them. FDR did not design the Great Depression and as current events similar, seem to repeat, he “inherited it,” and as the current administration use words today, FDR had to try and “mop up.”

    Whenever a crisis is real or designed, the public at large become concerned at least and at worst, worried and afraid. Fear is a powerful enemy and a tool which can be used to make rapid and radical changes. FDR knew this when he said, The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. But many were afraid then and many are afraid today. Good intentioned or not, there is a great tendency to blame others – to criticize, condemn and complain. During a crisis, first, you challenge the thinking as being ‘wrong thinking.’ Next you associate that ‘wrong thinking’ with ‘danger’ and finally you endeavor to show the cause of both the ‘wrong thinking’ and the ‘danger’ stemming from the motivation to profit or for profit. If successful, this method has and can move policy forward. Again, I am not questioning FDR’s motivation or that of any president past, future or present, but with the same methods that have been used in the past and are being used in the present, I question and boldly question, the thinking, the danger and motivations of the those which stand to gain the most in profits, power and control.

    Every dictator, tyrant, leader, lawyer and politician knows clearly that the pot they hold or have any measure of control over is limited. WE the people have either contributed to that pot or what WE have, has been taken from us. Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than giving to those that have not contributed or contributed enough. It is to take that which is given and given to those that have not. Not that helping others is the problem, as it is who gets the help and how much. It removes individual the choice of who gets the help and how much from those that have contributed or forced to pay into this limited pot. So this pot has costs to administer it. There can be waste, theft, corruption and abuse of what is in the pot. So after it is all said and done, the pot is smaller in the end than it was at the start and fewer people to benefit from it. Finally, it lays in the hands of those which control the pot to decide who gets what.

    No matter how long; how often and for what we cry – help me, fix me, cover me, protect me, heal me, empower me or ‘success me,’ there is only so much in the pot. There is only so much to go around. Somebody is ‘gonna’ get something at the expense or the exclusion of someone else. No matter what WE are promised, someone(s) going to be missed or left out. So at the heart of this issue; at the heart of the Commerce Clause is control. Our founding fathers with full understanding, set into our constitution, ‘The Balance of Powers.’ Since that time, it has been a matter of control. How does one go about controlling all three branches of government? If the Democratic Party was in control of the Congress during FDR’s presidency (and they were), and the executive branch was under the control of FDR (and it was), and for the most part, the Supreme Court and the Judiciary Branch was under the control of the White House (and it was), this is called jurisdiction or control. But this all started a long time before FDR!

    To conclude this lengthy, but important series, we must go back into the past, all the way back to the year of 1861.

    This is a tawdry tale of usurpation, jurisdiction and control. It is hidden like the Matrix or like Alice’s tales in Wonderland. The most astonishing thing of all, is that it is all legal (fiction), and out in the open for anyone to see.

    What may seem as insurmountable odds in regaining control of our liberties may appear hopeless, but there is an answer! Stay tuned here as we continue.

    Next Time –  Getting OUR Heads out of the Sand

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different.

    Ask not what your country can do for you

    or what you can do for your country,

    but what can WE do for each other!”

    1 of WE,

    Dahni
    An Amer-I-Can eagle


    Next Post – Getting OUR Heads out of the Sand
    Previous Post – Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – part 2
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    The Commerce Clause part 2 of 4

    October 22, 2009

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 10/22/09

    all rights reserved

    HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?WE began delving into what won’t work to get to what will work. So far:

    The List (simplified)

    1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

    2.   The 9/12 Project?

    3.   Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? This is where WE are

    Today – ‘The Commerce Clause’ – part 2 of 4

    WE have looked at the exact wording of the ‘Commerce Clause’ from the U.S. Constitution. WE looked at ‘Wickard VS. Filburn,’ the landmark case decided in 1942.  WE also looked at the U.S. Supreme Court’s own website, as to the facts of this case and its unprecedented decisions. Finally, we looked at several states that have begun recently, to challenge those decisions under the banner of gun control laws.

    Many strict constitutionalists believe the Supreme Court decisions in ‘Wickard VS. Filburn’ were unconstitutional. What was more than a mere interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘commerce’ begs the question:

    How did the federal government not just have the power to ‘regulate commerce,’ but command jurisdiction over the states?

    In order to understand this we need to understand what else was going on in the country in 1942 when the Wickard v. Filburn case was decided, granting more control to the Federal government, by interpreting the Commerce Clause as the Supreme Court did. Unfortunately, by 1942 when his case found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, all but one justice had been appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Justice Owen Josephus Roberts, a Republican, had been appointed by Herbert Hoover. The Court was clearly in Roosevelt’s corner philosophically. The court’s unanimous decision in this case reflected New Deal logic.

    In telling a story, there is a format utilized known as narrative development. In order to appreciate the ending, we need to understand how the story evolved. Such is the importance in understanding the ‘Commerce Clause.’ What led up to this court case and what else was going on in the country at the time the Supreme Court rendered its decision?

    To raise revenue to fund the War Between the States, the income tax was introduced in the United States with the Revenue Act of 1861. It was a flat rate tax of 3% on annual income above $800. The following year, this was replaced with a graduated tax of 3-5% on income above $600 in the Revenue Act of 1862, which specified a termination of income taxation in 1866.

    The Socialist Labor Party advocated for a graduated income tax in 1887. The Populist Party “demanded a graduated income tax” in their 1892 platform. The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894, and proposed an income tax in their 1908 platform.

    Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff’d on reh’g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895) all income taxes had been considered to be excises (indirect taxes) required to be imposed with geographical uniformity; such taxes were not required to be apportioned by state according to population (as are direct taxes).

    In his dissent to the Pollock decision, Supreme Court Justice Harlan stated:

    “When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution — two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring — such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government”

    The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax withoutapportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which limited the Congress’s authority to levy an income tax.

    The wording of the original constitution was changed and hairs spilt over “indirect” as opposed to direct taxes.  It was ratified on February 3, 1913 by 42 of then, 48 states.

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    For history and purpose of the amendment see:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt16_user.html#amdt16_hd7

    • October 29, 1929The New York Stock Market crashes to an all time low (referred to as “Black Tuesday”), signalling the start of the Great Depression.
    • March 4, 1933Franklin Roosevelt is sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States.
    • December 5, 1933The 21st Amendment is added to the Constitution, pepealing prohibition.
    • January 20, 1937Franklin Roosevelt is sworn in as President for a 2nd term.
    • January 20, 1941Franklin Roosevelt is sworn in as President for a 3rd term.

    World War II

    • December 7, 1941Japanese forces attack the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
    • December 7, 1941 – Hitler issued Nacht und Nebel, the Night and Fog Decree. This decree replaced the unsuccessful Nazi policy of taking hostages to undermine underground activities. Suspected underground agents and others would now vanish without a trace into the night and fog. SS Reichsführer Himmler issued the following instructions to the Gestapo.

    “After lengthy consideration, it is the will of the Führer that the measures taken against those who are guilty of offenses against the Reich or against the occupation forces in occupied areas should be altered. The Führer is of the opinion that in such cases penal servitude or even a hard labor sentence for life will be regarded as a sign of weakness. An effective and lasting deterrent can be achieved only by the death penalty or by taking measures which will leave the family and the population uncertain as to the fate of the offender. Deportation to Germany serves this purpose.”

    • December 8, 1941The United States declares war on Japan.
    • December 11, 1941Germany and Italy declare war on the United States.
    • January 1 1942 – The name “United Nations”, coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the “Declaration by United Nations,” on this date during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. The League of Nations was considered ineffective since it was not able to prevent WW II
    • November 28, 1942 – Cocoanut Grove fire – Huge fire – heavy on media coverage and the public mind
    • 1942 – Congress of Racial Equality – CORE – begins in Chicago to peacefully challenge segregation. Reached its zenith when it helped organize Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous march on Washington August 28, 1963
    • 1942 – Revenue Act of 1942 gas rationing and increased income taxes
    • May 15, 1942 Gasoline rationing was put into effect. Allocation: 3 gallons per week, to cover ordinary driving demands. Office of Price Administration (OPA) was the federal agency tasked with establishing price controls on nonagricultural commodities and rationing essential consumer goods during World War II (1939–1945). The Emergency Price Control Act (EPCA) passed on 30 January 1942 provided the legislative basis for OPA to regulate prices, not including agricultural commodities. EPCA also allowed for rent controls. The most prominent result of EPCA was the General Maximum Price Regulation issued by OPA in May 1942. This effectively set the price ceiling at March 1942 levels. However, EPCA did not address other economic issues beyond price controls. The resulting economic dislocations forced Congress to pass the Stabilization Act on 2 October 1942. This created the Office of Economic Stabilization (OES) that was responsible for controlling wage levels, regulating food prices, and generally stabilizing the cost of living. At this point, any OPA activities that could affect the cost of living had to be coordinated with OES. The effectiveness of OPA’s measures is subject to some debate. While OPA pointed to an overall 31-percent rise in retail prices in World War II compared to a 62-percent rise in World War I (1914–1918), undoubtedly a black market developed in response to price controls. Maintenance of product quality was a constant concern. OPA even colorfully noted in its Twelfth Quarterly Report “a renaissance of cattle rustlers in the West.” Reports from OPA’s Enforcement Division show that 650,000 investigations were conducted for all of 1943, with 280,000 violations found. In 1944, a total of 338,029 violations were reported, with 205,779 administrative warning letters sent out. Court proceedings were initiated in almost 29,000 cases.
    • Monday, November 9, 1942 the case which challenged the Commerce Clause Petitioner:  Wickard VS. Respondent: Filburn  was decided in favor of the government

    The most obvious event of 1942 when the entire nation and the world were so otherwise occupied with World War II, the attention was on the war in the media of the day, not on the courts, legislation or legislators. Intentional or not, it is easy to slip things by when people are not paying attention. After the attack on Pearl Harbor December 7th, 1941, the entire country was galvanized towards and primarily focused on the war efforts.

    This is a tawdry tale of usurpation, jurisdiction and control. It is hidden like the Matrix or like Alice’s tales in Wonderland. The most astonishing thing of all is that it is all legal (fiction), and out in the open for anyone to see.

    What may seem as insurmountable odds in regaining control of our liberties may appear hopeless, but there is an answer! Stay tuned here as we continue.

    Next Time –  ‘The Commerce Clause’ – part 3 of 4

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different. I think no greater or more eloquent words were ever spoken about getting involved, than those by President John F. Kennedy –

    “Ask not what your country can do for you,

    but what you can do for your country!”

    1 of WE,

    Dahni

    An Amer-I-Can eagle

    Next Post – Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – part 3
    Previous Post – What are WE?
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    WWWWW – What are WE?

    October 8, 2009

    Watchers – Whistles – Waiters – Wakers  – or Walkers

    (What are WE)

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 10/7/09

    all rights reserved

    Note: Due to the severity of the plural-crisis in our day and in our time, this post interrupts our continued study of the ‘Commerce Clause.’ It is to also, to implore you the reader to stay posted here and to bring others. This blog is not being read by sufficient numbers! It is not getting out!  This information is crucial for anyone and everyone IF, you really want to not just see change you can believe in, but to affect change! MayWE bound, not by fear, but by the mutual goals of WE the People!

    Walk1

    Are WE watchers, watching all that goes on all around us? Are WEwhistles that blow, signaling the times and places and persons of interest or that alarm others? Are WE waiters, waiting for others to move or do WE wait on them to move?  Are WE wakers that arise early, and decide that if WE are awake, everyone else should be as well? Are WE walkers, people that move through life? What are WE?

    Walk2Do WE watch the times and places and things and people all around us? Do WE watch seconds tick away from our finite lives?

    To be fair, there are times and people which provide a service to the rest ofUS that watch; are watchdogs of the times, places, people and things affecting and effecting all our lives,  separately and collectively.

    Walk3

    Are WE whistles that blow signaling the times and places and persons of interest or that alarm others?

    To be fair, there are times and people which provide a service to the rest of US that blow these whistles; are whistle blowers alarming and informing us of what otherwise may remain hidden, unknown and uninterrupted.

    Walk4

    Are WE waiters, waiting for others to move or do WE wait on them to move?

    To be fair, there are times and people which provide a service to the rest ofUS that wait for US or upon US. There are times WE just must wait on or wait for the right moment, the right person or the right thing.

    Walk5

    Are WE wakers (those awake) that arise early, and decide that if WE are awake, everyone else should be as well?

    To be fair, there are times and people which provide a service to the rest of US, waking us up from the slumber of sleep, apathy and ignorance.

    Walk6Are WE walkers, people that move through life? Are WE watchers, whistles, waiters and wakers or doWE walk and move forward? What are WE?

    To be fair, a walker is awake and can awaken others. They wait on and they wait for people, places and things, but while they wait, they walk. A walker is a whistle to inform and alarm others they meet while walking. Walkers watch the times, places, people and things of life while they walk.

    With no disrespect intended or implied to those that are deaf, dumb (without speech), blind or lame (unable to walk or that walk with limitations), often the deaf, dumb, blind and lame –  hear, speak, see and walk far better, than those with no physical limitations.

    There are none so blind than those which refuse to see. There are none so deaf than those who will not hear. There are none so dumb than those who decline to speak when it is in their power and their responsibility to do so. There are none so lame than those who will not walk.

    Be the change You can believe in. Watch, whistle, wait and wake while you WALK!

    Next Time: Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – part 2

    1 of WE,

    Dahni
    An American eagle


    Next Post – Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – part 2
    Previous Post – The Wisdom of WE
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    The Wisdom of WE

    September 12, 2009

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 9/12/09

    all rights reserved

    Due to the severity of the plural-crisis in our day and in our time, this post interrupts our continued study of the ‘Commerce Clause.’ It is to also, commemorate the unity WE the people were bound by, on September 12th, 2001. May we continue to be so bound, not by fear, but by the mutual goals of WE the People!

    The following are a series of my edited ‘Tweets,’ posted in succession in the early morning hours of September 12, 2009, on Twitter – http://twitter.com/Dahni1

    WEthePeople

    Problem (thesis) + Fear (antithesis) = Solution is the government? In another way of stating this: Problem + Reaction = Solution. This is a definition of Hegelian Dialectic.

    Have or create a crisis/problem – React with fear – Then the Government is the solver or the provider of the solution, but the problem/crisis and the promotion of fear and the solver of the solution (the government), are all, one and the same!

    Things = to the same thing are = 2 each other.

    Our problems/fears are removed when WE remove the corruption in government. WE must stack the government with those that will perform to do the will of WE the people, or perhaps there is a similar solution?

    A 2-party system WE think is choice, is really dividing US and pushing agendas which take away OUR freedoms – Problem + Reaction = Solution

    OUR true freedom lies in the liberty of personal initiative, independent thought and personal responsibility.

    The legal corporation of the United States of America needs to be dissolved and WE need to return to the sovereignty intended by our founding founders.

    Every American Citizen needs to understand what ‘Legal Fiction,’ is!” There exists, 2 USA’s and 100 states. One of these groups  is legal fiction. WE are living in ‘The Matrix.! Do WE take the red pill or the blue pill? How far down the rabbit hole do WE want to fall?

    Awake – arise from the slumber and sleep of deception – THIS IS OUR TIME!

    Create a crisis – scare people – then only government can come to the rescue? Rubbish!!!!

    WE need to replace ALL politicians from the local, state & National level, with citizens under contract, for a limited term of service and have a ‘farm’ team to replace them, if they cannot discharge their duties or are in breach of contract. Right, like that’s going to happen? There is an more simple solution!

    Who holds the responsibility 4 U & I? Who has the power to affect OUR lives?

    Power corrupts!

    To make informed decisions, WE need accurate information. If the Internet is a “sewer of misinformation,” according to Tom Friedman, what then, is the mass media?

    If the Internet is a “sewer” and mass media does not provide accurate information, then they are not merely biased – they are the suppressors of information.

    What is one thing dictators do to control people? Answer: Suppress or control information. The mass media in the USA for the most part, is guilty of this!

    The 14th amendment to the Constitution describes a citizen, unintended by the original Constitution and is “legal fiction.”

    While the un-civil war was taking place in he 1800’s and the nation was divided and distracted, “legal fiction” created another USA with states having the same names. This new “legal fiction” USA, had jurisdiction over these same named “legal fiction” states. In 1863 all the states became districts under the jursidiction of the Federal government and the president. This jurisdiction became a legal corporation with the seat or center of the corporation residing in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) in 1871. NO PRESIDENT (democrat or republican), since Abraham Lincoln, or congress or Supreme Court, HAS EVER RESCINDED THIS ORDER, REPEALED IT OR OVERTURNED IT!

    Question Everything and Everyone and question boldly! Take a stand for something or fall for everything.

    Always follow the money!

    Remember – it is NOT US against them, or each other! It is WE the people! This is OUR country.

    If WE were born in a state in the U.S.A. that was here prior to 1861 as were our forefathers, we are sovereign citizens of that state.

    Sovereignty was promised to our forefathers and their posterity (to  you and I), in the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution of the United States of America.

    Today in courts of law, there are rights & privileges. Rights belong to the people – privileges are given by the state. Courts have declared that they have no responsibility to inform us of our rights or to protect them.

    Only the belligerent may demand their constitutional rights!

    WE can change if we want to, as soon as right NOW and in the next election year.

    WE can legally write-in anyone we want! WE landowners can legally have our votes recorded and placed into the public records! Why would WE want to do that? The answer coming soon!

    Would a third party succeed? Such a thing has NEVER worked, but could it? Whenever WE make up our mind, IT COULD BE DONE! But there is an easier way! The answer is coming soon!

    Thirteen original colonies despite their several differences, unanimously declared on legal grounds, separation from tyranny and to that end, pledged their “lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.”

    Only 10-13% of the population of 13 original colonies fought in the Revolutionary War in the 1700’s. Most were untrained, undisciplined and without the adequate resources to fight or to often, even survive! Yet these 13 little colonies defeated the greatest military power of the day. Oh, what can be done when there is WILL and WE make up OUR minds!!!

    Power corrupts – Location does not change a heart whether it is in China or the USA. Some people always seek power, no matter where they are.

    Power seekers have had real problems with the balance of power system our government was founded upon, but…

    …throughout our history, the executive has tried to legislate and control the judiciary…

    …the judiciary has tried to legislate and INTERPRET the law…

    …the legislative have tried to execute and influence the judiciary…

    …lobbyists & business have always sought to influence.

    Politics instead of it being the duty to serve for the rights afforded to all, has become the career path of the privileged few!

    When a politician no longer listens to, cares for, or fears (respects), the will of his or her constituents, they are NOT a servant of WE the People!

    What makes us different from all other species of animals upon this planet, lie in our ability to survive TOGETHER!

    Any government which does not promote such togetherness by liberty and freedom is the enemy of the PEOPLE.

    WE who have the ability (even knowledge is an ability), to change such evil which threaten OUR survival, have the responsibility to change!

    What are WE – A Democracy or a Republic?

    A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling individual rights.

    A republic grants limited authority and is derived through election by the people of those best fitted to represent them and to protect the rights of all people.

    Ask not what our country can do for us, or what WE can do for our country, but ask what WE can do, for one another…

    …that a country of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE, may not perish, but prosper and shine out, unto the entire world!

    If WE meet it is WE that must decide, shall WE meet as enemies or shall we meet as friends?

    My rights as a sovereign citizen are equal to my responsibility to protect your sovereign citizen rights. I may by free choice and by my individual ability do more, but I CANNOT DO LESS!

    Want to change what cannot be seen, for what WE can see, in OUR lifetimes?

    Next Time: What are WE?

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different.

    Ask not what your country can do for you

    or what you can do for your country,

    but what can WE do for each other!”


    1 of WE,

    Dahni
    An Amer-I-Can eagle


    Next Post – What are WE?
    Previous Post – Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – part 1
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    The Commerce Clause – part 1 of 4

    August 18, 2009

    by Dahni

    © Copyright 8/17/09

    all rights reserved

    I am sorry it has been so long since my last post, but I had a photo shoot in Wisconsin and came down with perhaps a triple-whammy. It started as an upper respiratory infection, then perhaps the flu and I am just recently getting my strength back and recovering from bronchitis.

    Just to refresh, you might want to re-read the previous post – Preparation for The Commerce Clause

    HOW can WE the People regain control of Our right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have been delving into what won’t work to get to what will. So far on the list:

    The List (simplified)

    1.   Overthrow the government by a military coup or para-military militias?

    2.   The 9/12 Project?

    3.   Challenge ‘The Commerce Clause’? – This is what is WE are working on.

    Previously WE looked into a preview and a preparation.

    Today – ‘The Commerce Clause’ – part 1 of 4

    CommereceClause1

    Oh those fancy-smancy, funky, funny founding fathers, with their knee-high stockings and powdered wigs, sprayed with sugar water to hold them in place! What could they possibly know about government?

    Oh how un-progressive and so not with it. The audacity of suggesting a balance of power! How un-monarchy and so un-tyrannical they were to suggest separate branches of government – an executive, legislative and a judiciary branch!

    No sooner had the Revolutionary War ended and the colonies had miraculously obtained independence from one king, many wanted General George Washington to be their first king of the freed colonies. How dare he respectfully decline the offer!

    By the time the U.S. Constitution was written, many peeved politicians (executives & legislators) and judges (judiciary), were already trying to figure out loopholes or ways around this balance of power thing.

    Many are familiar with part or parts of the following quotation, but few understand when it was written, its context or by whom it was written:

    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (aka) Baron Acton or  Lord Acton  (1834–1902),  was an English historian and moralist. He took great interest in the United States and its structure for protecting individual liberties. During the War Between the States, he sided specifically with the Confederacy, for their defense of State’s rights.

    In 1870 Pope Pius IX promulgated the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility. Lord Acton went to Rome with all his influence to try and stop it. In a letter dated April 1887, he wrote the scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton:

    “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you super-add the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

    1887 is also noteworthy as it was the year the ‘Commerce Clause’ (our subject here), for about the first time since its inception, was called in question. Scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress, and thus a broad interpretation of the word “commerce” was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, they argue that the word “commerce”, as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either “trade” or “exchange” interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements.

    They also point to Madison’s statement in an 1828 letter that the

    “Constitution vests in Congress expressly…the power to regulate trade.”

    U.S. Constitution

    Section 8.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

    [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    ‘The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes. Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to the Congress of the United States. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as “the Foreign Commerce Clause“, “the Interstate Commerce Clause“, and “the Indian Commerce Clause“, each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

    Dispute exists as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. Many strict constitutionalists deny that this is the proper application of the Commerce Clause.

    Examining contemporaneous dictionaries does not neatly resolve the matter. For instance, the 1792 edition of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language defines the noun “commerce” narrowly as “[e]xchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick”, but it defines the corresponding verb “to commerce” more broadly as “[t]o hold intercourse”. The word “intercourse” also had a different and wider meaning back in 1792 than it does now.

    The following is taken from the Supreme Court’s own website:

    The landmark case which set a precedent was: Docket No.: 59

    Petitioner:  Wickard VS. Respondent: Filburn  Decided By:  Stone Court (1942-1943)  Opinion:  317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    Argued:  Tuesday, October 13, 1942  Decided:  Monday, November 9, 1942

    Facts of the Case:

    Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Filburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.[and on his own property – emphasis added]

    Question:

    Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?

    Conclusion:

    According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, “it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’[1]

    With little press coverage and almost no one knowing about it, in May of 2009, Montana became the first of several states to recently challenge the century old ‘doctored’ Commerce Claus. The governor of Montana wanted the courts to hear it and basically said if they don’t like it, Montana would secede from the union. Montana being so small in population was uninteresting to overall press coverage. Utah followed and they too, being small in numbers of people, seemed unimportant. Then Texas introduced a similar bill and all of sudden, people started paying attention. Tennessee was on the horizon.

    What appears to center on gun laws, Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Sports Shooting Association and author of the Montana bill said, “Guns are the object, but states’ rights are the subject.”

    Indeed Montana is seeking a court challenge which is the point of the bill, but alone, Montana has little chance of being heard or if heard, of ever prevailing.

    “In effect, Montana‘s trying to turn back the clock to pre-New Deal times, or even pre-Civil War times,” said.Mr Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

    But all total, about 30 states are considering state sovereignty laws. Where the public cry is loud, the courts have a tendency to hear.

    “What’s going on is that people all over the country have decided, ‘Enough is enough,” said Kevin Gutzman, a professor at Western Connecticut State University and the author of ‘Who Killed the Constitution?’ “This is supposed to be a federal system, but instead Congress seems to think it can legislate anything it wants.”

    Even so, gun-control groups have blasted the law. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called it “wrong from the constitutional side and wrong from the policy side.”

    “The courts do pay attention to something they call ’emerging consensus.’ It means the natives are getting more than restless. Hopefully, because there are so many clones of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act being introduced in other states, the courts will recognize this as an emerging consensus.”

    Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Sports Shooting Association

    and author of the Montana bill

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said that the courts were unlikely to side with Montana, describing the Interstate Commerce Clause as “settled federal law.”

    If the courts are unlikely to favor Montana, why would they side with any of the other states individually or collectively? If they do heed an ‘emerging consensus,’ what must be done to change “settled federal law?”

    For one thing, an overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court would need to be willing to overturn over a century of rulings from their own court. Let’s say that this is possible though highly improbable. Those presenting the case(s) would need to have their statutory (their legalese or legal speak), all in order. In order for that to happen, every presenter through verbal argument or legal writ would have to each not only be just attorneys, but specialists in Constitutional Law. Go state by state and see for yourself. Just how many law schools in the country have any requirements for any credits to graduate, required in Constitutional Law? The answer is very, very few!

    OK, let’s really get far-fetched here and say this assembly of attorneys all graduated from the right schools and are all specialists in Constitutional Law, then what? Every single one of them would need to be exact clones of the fictional characters of Perry Mason and Monk, having NEVER LOST A CASE! Now multiply the numbers of states necessary for the Supreme Court to pay attention to an ‘emerging consensus’ X the numbers of perfect arguments and perfect legal writs and the attorneys that have never lost a case. It becomes if not impossible, the odds of winning are astronomical!!!

    And then after all of that, just like Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said, it would still be, “wrong from the constitutional side and wrong from the policy side.

    Why would this be so? In order to understand this we need to understand what else was going on in the country in 1942 when the Wickard v. Filburn case was decided, granting more control to the Federal government, by interpreting the Commerce Clause as the Supreme Court did.

    This is a tawdry tale of usurpation, jurisdiction and control. It is hidden like the Matrix or like Alice’s tales in Wonderland. The most astonishing thing of all is that it is all legal (fiction), and out in the open for anyone to see.

    What may seem as insurmountable odds in regaining control of our liberties may appear hopeless, but there is an answer! Stay tuned here as we continue.

    Next Time –  ‘Special Post commemorating 9/12/01 – ‘The Wisdom of WE

    Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. Even if it is just leaving a comment, that’s doing something. But don’t bother in telling me how stupid I am, this won’t work or that you hate my guts and things like that. Been there, done that and heard that all before and then some. Be original. Be different. I think no greater or more eloquent words were ever spoken about getting involved, than those by President John F. Kennedy –

    “Ask not what your country can do for you,

    but what you can do for your country!”

    Next time: The Wisdom of WE

    1 of WE,

    Dahni

    An Amer-I-Can eagle

    Next Post – The Wisdom of WE
    Previous Post – Preparation for ‘The Commerce Clause’
    Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

    [1] The Oyez Project, Wickard v. Filburn , 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
    available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59)

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/