~~Father Jay Rice

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Via 4Branch

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Tennessee could be the fifth state to approve a constitutional convention like the one that took place in Philadelphia in 1787.

Regarding the location of sovereignty in the American system of government, Jefferson Davis, in his postwar “Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,” stated: “If any lingering doubt could have existed as to the reservation of their entire sovereignty by the people of the respective States when they organized the federal Union, it would have been removed by the adoption of the tenth amendment to the Constitution, which was not only one of the amendments proposed by various States when ratifying that instrument, but the particular one in which they substantially agreed, and upon which they most urgently insisted
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.org The Great American Political Divide

The Problem of Sovereignty

“The fundamental issue in the writing of the Articles of Confederation was the location of the ultimate political authority, the problem of sovereignty. Should it reside in Congress or the States?

Many conservatives in 1776-1777, as in 1787, believed that Congress should have a “superintending” power over both the States and their individual citizens. They had definite reasons for such a desire.

They feared mob action and democratic rule.

The radicals, on the other hand, were fighting centralization in their attack upon the British Empire and upon the colonial governing classes, whose interests were so closely interwoven with the imperial relationship. Furthermore, the interests of the radicals were essentially local.

To them union was merely a means to their end, the independence of the several States. Hence centralization was to be opposed. Finally, the democratic theory of the time was antagonistic to any government with pretensions toward widespread dominion. Theorists believed that democratic government was impossible except within very limited areas.

Thus the conflict between those who were essentially “nationalists” and those who were forerunners of the “States rights” school.

The real significance of this controversy was obscured during the nineteenth century by historians and politicians who sought to justify the demands of rising industrialism on the central government and the Northern attitude toward the South’s secession in 1860-61.

The Southern contention that the Union was a compact between sovereign States was opposed by the contention that the Union was older than the States. North historians insisted that the first Continental Congress was a sovereign body, and that it represented the people of the United States as a whole, not the people of the several States as represented in their State governments.

To prove their contentions the Northerners cited such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the Constitution of 1787 . . . [and italicizing] to place undue emphasis on the portions of the documents which seemed to prove their arguments.

This is essentially the technique of argument used by small boys and would be unworthy of consideration had it not been so effective in shaping certain ideas which have profoundly influenced the interpretation of American history.”

(The Articles of Confederation, an Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781, Merrill Jensen, University of Wisconsin Press, 1940, excerpts pp. 161-163

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Image result for The Articles of Confederation, an Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781, Merrill Jensen,

The American Revolution involved two groups fighting the British: the conservatives, who reluctantly left British control as it guaranteed their power and wealth; and the radicals who wanted to overturn the aristocratic colonial structure as well as British rule from afar. The latter desired sovereign States with a weak central government, the former desired the reverse.

The author below notes “the writing and ratification of the Articles of Confederation is merely the first chapter in the constitutional history of the United States. In the years to come, section was to be arrayed against section, class against class, and party against party in an effort to determine the province of the central government and that of the States.”

Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.org The Great American Political Divide

Hostile Colonies and States United

“The fundamental difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787 lies in the apportionment of power between the States and the central government. In the first the balance of power was to the States, and in the second to the central government. The first constitution was one of a federal organization; the second was in essence that of a national government, although political realities demanded the retention of federal features.

The difference between the two was the result of the shifting balances of political power within the thirteen States, which enabled first one party and then the other to write its desires, its beliefs, and its interests into the colorless language of a constitution.

Hence it was the nature of union, and not its desirability, that was the major issue between the parties in 1776. The conservatives wished for the recreation, as nearly as might be, of the system that had existed before the Revolution.

The radicals tended to desire a union chiefly for the purpose of carrying on the war, but a union that would not infringe upon the sovereign authority of the individual States. They believed profoundly that only under such a system was democracy possible.

The greatest obstacle to a union of almost any kind was the States’ independence of one another. The colonies had been founded individually and had developed different traditions and attitudes in spite of a common heritage of language, law, and government.

Their relations with each other were often unfriendly, especially after the middle of the eighteenth century, as a result of rival land claims. Actual warfare had been prevented only by the external power of Britain, which subdued them but did not eliminate their animosity toward one another.

Above all, the radicals believed that the independence of the States was the guarantee of the kind of government they desired. Speaking broadly, it was democracy they wanted, and they knew full well that the kind of democracy they wanted was incompatible with centralization. Their experience with the British Empire had taught them that much, and they were not soon to forget the lesson.”

(The Articles of Confederation, an Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781, Merrill Jensen, University of Wisconsin Press, 1940, excerpts pp. 109-110; 116-117)

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Image result for Trump's willingness to walk away at the G-7 and North Korea summits show his foreign policy is working

President Trump’s weekend trip to the summit of the Group of Seven industrial nations in Quebec and his upcoming summit Tuesday in Singapore with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un are good illustrations of his determination to bring about peace through strength and fair trade practices in relations with other countries.

President Trump would much rather use the skills he described in his book “The Art of the Deal” than those described in the ancient Chinese book “The Art of War.”

But the president sees the two different set of skills as interconnected.

More @ Fox

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Image result for john Brennan: commie muslim

John Brennan, who served as CIA director in the Obama administration, took a shot across the bow at President Trump after the president lashed out at Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for being “dishonest” and “weak."

In a pointed tweet Sunday morning, Brennan said Trump is "a temporary aberration" whose impact on the U.S. will not last.

More @ Washington Examiner

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Much to President Trump's delight, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is preparing to release the long-awaited report on the James Comey-era FBI and its handling of the Clinton email probe. Of course, coming two days after the historic meeting between President Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, it's easy to see why some have accused the DOJ of "slow walking" the report to take some of the heat off Comey ( and possibly bury it during a busy news day).

Given that the report has already gone through several rounds of reviews, some of the juicier broad-strokes have already leaked: Namely, that Comey "defied authority" and was "insubordinate" in his handling of announcements related to the Clinton investigation. And the likelihood is that it will only get better, because Horowitz has said he will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 18 to explain the report's findings in what will probably be the most highly anticipated Congressional testimony since Comey spoke on the Hill last June. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees are expected to hold hearings of their own the next day.

More @ Zero Hedge

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Via David

Dr. Thomas Sowell is someone whose work I’ve admired for years. I own a number of his books and next up on my reading is to re-read his seminal book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. In parallel I also plan to re-read his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice. (I’m still trying to get his autograph but no luck so far.)

He has a quotation whose exact wording I can’t find, but I cited it in Teflon Intellects (apologies for the paraphrasing, Dr. Sowell; hopefully someday I find the exact wordage):

A person who has tied their sense of moral superiority to specific beliefs cannot be debated.

And unable to debate with them is, to quote my late mother, “exactly right”. Just to give a recent example: I countered several someones in a social media venue; I presented multiple youtube videos, not to mention links to articles. And was called “fascist”, “racist”, not to mention implied attacks on my educational level (which, for reference, is high having multiple post-graduate degrees).

More @ Red Pill Jew

Brock Townsend · at Sunday, June 10, 2018

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

PM Justin Trudeau of Canada acted so meek and mild during our @G7 meetings only to give a news conference after I left saying that, “US Tariffs were kind of insulting” and he “will not be pushed around.” Very dishonest & weak. Our Tariffs are in response to his of 270% on dairy!

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "stabbed us in the back" with a "double cross" at the G7 summit, National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said Sunday, ratcheting up already sky-high tensions between the two neighboring allies.

"He holds a press conference, and he says the U.S. is insulting, and Canada has to stand up for itself," Kudlow, the White House's top economic adviser, said. "They have enormous tariffs, tariffs on certain dairy products. ... He was polarizing."