Monday, August 22, 2011

Justice Scalia to Preside in Mock Trial on Texas Secession



VERBATIM POST

The INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE
==============================

The WSJ blog notes that Justice Antonin Scalia will preside over a retrial of Texas v. White. This event will be sponsored by the Supreme Court’s Historical Society. This case centered on whether bond sales by the State of Texas, while part of the Confederate States of America, were valid. The Reconstruction government of Texas argued that these sales were invalid and that the holders of the bonds should turn them over to state authorities. The bond holders argued that simply because the state now had a new government, it could not undo all acts of the people’s representatives in a prior government.

The Court held that the sales of the bonds were invalid because the sales were in furtherance of a rebellion against the United States. In considering Texas’ place in the Union and the right of secession, the Court declared that the Union was perpetual and that no state has a right to dissolve it by a unilateral action.

What will be interesting in the mock trial is how Justice Scalia treats the fact that Texas was an independent republic until it joined the Union in 1845. Some, including Rick Perry, argue that this makes Texas different from the original 13 states and other states added thereafter. What they fail to realize is that all 13 states were independent republics before ratifying the Constitution of 1787.

Under the Treaty of Paris (1783), George III recognized that the individual states were now “free sovereign independent states, and that he treats with them as such.” The states of North Carolina and Rhode Island retained their complete independence and sovereignty until after the other 11 states ratified the Constitution and the federal government began operations. Had these two states not ratified, they would to this day be independent nations such as Great Britain and France are.

We’ll see if Justice Scalia buys into the false history that only Texas was once an independent republic.

Ron Paul: Government cannot protect us

Via Cousin John


Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

Via Randy's Right



The Ticket
VERBATIM POST
===========================
Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "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." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

Two good arguments against arson and riots

Oleg Volk
VERBATIM POST
========================

I think that one resolute person with a firearm could have ended the recent London riots in minutes. Unfortunately, British authorities seem to favor the thugs and would have tried to prosecute lawful self-defense…hence the disclaimer.

North Carolina American Republic

Via Cousin John

Why I am no longer a libertarian

I’ve considered myself a libertarian since before even learning what the word meant, as a teenager if I remember correctly. I’ve never, ever seen the logic in prohibiting consensual activity where there is no clear, self-identifying victim. I’ve never been a fan of anyone forcing their will upon another unless that person “started it” by forcing their will upon another and thereby violating the golden rule in the first place. And, of course, I’ve voted for Libertarian Party candidates and met with Libertarian activists.

But I will no longer call myself a libertarian.

The typical American, upon hearing the term will either not know what the political philosophy means (or what the party stands for), or they will dismiss the philosophy (or party) as being irrelevant. At the very least, they will dismiss it as being of little relevance.

And, keep in mind that politics pertains to government and that government, boiled down, is power and force. So, another way of saying that a political movement is of little relevance is to say that it is weak. And another way of saying that a movement is weak is to say that it is harmless.

Now I know some of you may be saying “Well, I want a harmless government. I want a weak government.” Well, so do I. I want as little government as possible, probably less government than you do. However, you’re not going to get a weaker, more harmless government by giving it an example to follow. You ain’t gonna get the bully to stop bullying by showing him just how cool it is to be a you-know-what.

And I know some of you may be saying that it’s a sell-out move to abandon a political philosopy in such a way, but I’m not abandoning the political philosophy. I still agree with its tenets as much as I always have, 100%. My issue is with what the word has come to mean. Just as the word “gay,” once upon a time meant “happy,” so too has the word libertarian been co-opted, from my vantage point anyway.

The biggest voices espousing libertarianism, I have discovered, seem to have an aversion to the idea that violence is an effective and necessary tool.

THE GUN BLOG BLACKLIST

Charles Dyer X2

Request For Assistance

Hello.

I’m contacting you about Dyerpalooza; this is a nationwide fundraiser and celebration for the American political dissident and fugitive Charles Dyer/aka July4Patriot. I know he’s not your regular beat but he had his home and all his exculpatory evidence burned the Friday before his court date, so rather than submit to being railroaded he’s on the run.

Tentatively it’s set for September 9th or 10th-don’t have a on site venue or internet venue either, but provided would you consider participating either where you’re at with cyberlink to the central node, or perhaps at the main venue?

Our twofold goal is to raise enough money to pay off the bond on the Dyer’s farm, their legal bills and to raise awareness on just how he’s been screwed-there’s a silence on the media as they want to murder him.

If interested reply at my e-mail @ j-croft@graffiti.net

J. Croft

MORE

===============================================

Oath Keepers Offers to Assist in Peaceful Resolution of Charles Dyer Situation

As you may know, Charles Dyer, known as “July4patriot” on Youtube, is now the subject of an FBI manhunt after failing to appear for trial in Oklahoma. News reports came in that he may be in the Sealy, Texas area, and now there are news reports stating that Charles Dyer may be in the area of Fort Bend County, Texas. Jay Stang, our Texas Vice President, lives in Sugar Land, which is in Fort Bend County.

Jay met Charles Dyer at the Oath Keepers rally on Lexington Green, April 19, 2009, and they became friends. They also happened to serve in the same unit in the Marine Corps, though not at the same time. Because Charles Dyer may be in the Houston Texas area, Jay Stang has offered to serve as a go-between to help Charles surrender peacefully, so he can go to trial.

MORE

Libyan Draft Constitution: Sharia is ‘Principal Source of Legislation’

Obama spreading "Democracy" around the world........
=================================================

The dust has not yet settled over the Libyan capital of Tripoli since rebels took control over the weekend. But already, a draft constitutional charter for the transitional state has appeared online (embedded below). It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult. There is also no way to know whether this draft or something similar will emerge as the final governing document for a new Libyan regime.

As both the Morning Bell and Washington in a Flash noted today, Heritage Fellow Jim Phillips recently pointed out that Islamist forces “appear to make up a small but not insignificant part of the opposition coalition,” and must be prevented “from hijacking Libya’s future.” Parts of the draft Constitution allay those fears, while others exacerbate them.

Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

MORE

Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul


President Barack Obama is closely matched against each of four possible Republican opponents when registered voters are asked whom they would support if the 2012 presidential election were held today. Mitt Romney leads Obama by two percentage points, 48% to 46%, Rick Perry and Obama are tied at 47%, and Obama edges out Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann by two and four points, respectively.