It’s Time To End Hamilton’s Curse

It’s Time To End Hamilton’s Curse; by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; LewRockwell.Com; 27 November 2007.

Hamilton was also the founding father of constitutional subversion. In contrast to Jefferson’s strict constructionist views, which sought to use the Constitution as a limitation on governmental powers, Hamilton thought of the Constitution as a document that could be "reinterpreted" by clever lawyers like himself and his political compatriot, Chief Justice John Marshall, to provide a "rubber stamp" on almost any governmental activity. He was the inventor of the subversive notion of "implied" powers of the Constitution. As Rossiter explained (approvingly): "It seems certain that Hamilton would have affixed a certain certificate of constitutionality to every last tax . . . . Hamilton took a large view of the power to tax because he took a large view of the power to spend."

Why the Federal Reserve Threatens Your Financial Future

Why the Federal Reserve Threatens Your Financial Future; By Jonathan Bartlett; Adventures of a Turtle Mt. Hillbilly; 23 November 2007.

Your financial future literally holds in the balance—the next few years may bring about a financial collapse that will make the 1929 crash look like a cakewalk, or, Lord willing, maybe the American people will wake up in time and take action. However, if the current course is not given a drastic 180 degree turn within a vitally short period of time, everything is set for hyperinflation and the collapse of the American economy.

This is all because Congress abdicated its Constitutional authority to coin money and gave the responsibility over to the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Okay, here's a summary in as simplified a version as I can: The Federal Reserve, a private corporation, makes a book entry creating money out of thin air. This money is loaned to the United States Government after a guarantee of collateral equal to the face value of the loan plus interest (remember, it was just a book entry at first). This collateral is the land and wealth of the American people. The international bankers are in fact thieves, having made money at no cost to themselves.

Click here to read the entire article.

Note: I’ll readily admit that I know little about the Federal Reserve, nevertheless since beginning my research into the 17^th Amendment it has demonstrated a menacing link between the 16^th and 17^th Amendments and the formation of the Federal Reserve. So in the future I hope to include articles that highlight the 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve.

Comment: Woodrow Wilson said in The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913).

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men ... [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

The Founders understood that consolation of power would eventually enslave a people. Clearly in the Senate this consolidation has taken place, where Senators act on behalf of those that are out of sight and free from public scrutiny.

John F Green (Independent) For Congress Website

Folks, John F Green’s website is up and please take a look at it.

Comment: We need more folks like Mr. Green.

Write-in 5th District Candidate Understands the US Constitution

Write-in candidate offers third option in 5th District race; By Kevin Risner, Advertiser-Tribune (Tifton Ohio); 27 November 2007.

From the Advertiser-Tribune:

Napoleon resident John F. “Jack” Green is 78 years old and runs about three miles every morning. He also is running for Congress in the 5th District special election as a write-in candidate.

“I’m running because I can’t lose. I can only win,” Green said. “How can you lose something you never had?”

While Green’s name will not be on the ballot, the names of State Rep. Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green, and Democrat Robin Weirauch of Napoleon will be.

Green said he ran for the same congressional seat six or eight years ago, when no Democrat candidate was running. Green, a political independent, walked away from Republican Party affiliation when Richard Nixon was nominated by the party as a presidential candidate. Green said he was an active Republican in Ohio before leaving the party.

Green pointed to the requirements for independent candidates who desired to be named on the ballot in the current Congressional race as his reason for running as a write-in candidate. While Republican and Democrat candidates were required to submit at least 50 valid voter signatures to be placed on the ballot, independent candidates were required to submit at least 2,306 valid voter signatures.

Green said he has three main issues he wants to talk about in the race.

“First, we should eliminate the Federal Reserve System,” Green said. “Any time a bank makes a loan, they create money out of thin air. This is pure inflation. The second thing we should do is eliminate the federal income tax. It’s absolutely insane to tax one’s incentive to work. We’ve got a free enterprise system. It’s not right to tax one’s incentive to work.

“The third thing we should do is change the 17th amendment and let the state legislators once again appoint the United States senators.”

Green said during the first 124 years of the country, there was no Federal Reserve System, there was no federal income tax and state legislatures appointed senators.

“We had the greatest growth of any period of time in the history of the world,” Green said. “It’s never been matched in the 94 years since 1913 when we made all three of those changes.”

Green said returning to a system in which state legislatures appointed senators would make senators more accountable to their states.

Green said another thing voters should think about is the job description for Congress. He directs voters to the pertinent lines in Article One of the U.S. Constitution.

“Nowhere in that job description does it mention health care, free drugs, pensions, Social Security or education,” Green said. “So how can Congress pass laws in those areas?”

Green has a law degree but made his own way as a business entrepreneur. He owned part of a construction company, then owned a machine design company.

He said he experienced a health scare about 10 years ago, but otherwise has experienced good health during his life.

Green said the United States should stay the course in Iraq until the country is secure. He also said immigrants should be required to follow existing laws to enter the country and follow the rules after they enter the country.

Voters can read more about Green on his Web site at johnfgreen4congress.com.

Seneca County voters who want to vote for Green must fill in the oval on the ballot indicating the write-in candidate, then write in Green’s name.

Absentee ballots are available from the Seneca County Board of Elections. The special general election is to be held Dec. 11.

Note: Bold font used by blogger.

Comment: This man not only has wisdom, but a great understanding of the founder’s intent and the essence of the U.S. Constitution; and he is spot on. But the problem we face in this country is that people blindly go along like sheep and allow for the political class to operate completely unfettered. And this goes for both parties, because if any self-reflecting republican looked at the points Mr. Green is trumpeting, they would demand it become part of the republican platform. But today's republicans aren't reflective, and unfortunately have turned to a form of “socialism-lite.”

Three cheers for Mr. Green!

Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism

Time: approximately 1hr 51 min

The video embedded below is Aaron Russo’s America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version and I have to say it was very thought provoking. It is long but is worth your time.

Comment: Watch it and let me know what you think.

Senate Wants to Clean Up Government Too: Sure They Do!

Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion is reporting that Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Pat Leahy (D-VT) are putting forward a new measure to clean up the Senate.

It would broaden the definition of "official act" to include virtually any action a member of Congress takes while serving. The definition is critical. Bribery occurs only when a member takes something of value in return for performing an "official act."

The legislation unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 1 and awaits floor action.

Comment: OK and McCain-Feingold ended campaign finance abuse. Let’s face it any time one sees Pat Leahy’s name attached to a bill or measure to clean up Congress, you have to laugh. He is of course MR. SOCIALIST, who seeks nothing but the continued expansion of the federal government and removal of all individual liberty. Sure, wait pigs are flying folks.

The only way to clean up the Senate is to repeal the 17^th Amendment. At least then the States will have fair degree of influence to reduce the abuses committed by U.S. Senators.

Why Statesmen Matter and Politicians Don’t

HT: Sterling at the Repeal the 17^th Amendment Discussion Board and ROAR Restoring Our American Republic, Inc

From The Federalist:

"As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought in all governments, and actually will in all free governments ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs, when the people stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow mediated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth, can regain their authority over the public mind?"

James Madison, Federalist No. 63, 1788

Comment: Statesmen are sorely needed in this society of instant gratification and whiny selfish citizenry.

Constitution Paradigm: Left Verses Right

HT: Mike P. of the Repeal the 17^th Amendment Discussion Board

Political commentator and political science professor Larry Sabato puts forward the idea of revamping the U.S Constitution. Differing from Sabato’s “progressive” leaning, Ohio State University adjunct professor Matt Mayer responds from a constitutionalist perspective. I took a mild liberty and posted them together for ease of comparing. (Please note Mr. Mayer’s comments within about the 17 Amendment)

We need a new Constitution

The nation has changed since 1787. The founding document has to catch up.

By Larry J. Sabato

October 10, 2007

The presidential candidates are offering prescriptions for everything from Iraq to healthcare, but listen closely. Their fixes are situational and incremental. Meanwhile, the underlying structural problems in American politics and government are systemic and prevent us from solving our most intractable challenges.

If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change. And we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention.

Sound radical? If so, then the founders were radicals. They would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that the founders could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, insisted that "no society can make a perpetual Constitution. ... The Earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every Constitution ... naturally expires at the end of 19 years" (the length of a generation in Jefferson's time).

The Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation. These constitutional bits affect the daily life of the republic and every citizen in it. A few examples:

* Restoring the war powers balance. The framers split authority concerning matters of war-making between the president (commander in chief) and Congress (declaring war). Does anyone seriously believe that they would have approved of the executive department waging years-long wars without the explicit approval of the legislature? Yet the advantages accruing to any president -- the unitary nature of the office, the swift action that only he can take in a hair-trigger world, his dominance of the televised public forum -- have created an emperor as much as a president. The constitutional balance of shared war-making must be restored.

The president should have the freedom to commit troops for up to six months, under procedures similar to that of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But a new constitutional amendment should require that after six months -- and every six months thereafter -- both houses of Congress, by affirmative vote and without filibusters, would have to approve any extension. If one house votes no on extending, all combat troops must be withdrawn within a year.

This is an institutional reform, not a partisan attack on George W. Bush. Harry Truman on Korea and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on Vietnam were every bit as stubborn as Bush has been on Iraq. It is in the nature of the single-minded, victory-insistent presidential beast.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation's people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states -- and thus the unfairness -- was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let's build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

* Transforming presidential elections. Americans don't have to be convinced that our presidential election system is broken. The nation needs a sensible system of rotating regional primaries so that it would no longer be subject to the selfish whims of a few states.

The electoral college also must be overhauled, with more populated states receiving additional electors so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president. Why not abolish it entirely? The state-based electoral college isolates and simplifies recounts. Imagine how hopeless our predicament would be if the 2000 Florida recount had to be conducted nationwide.

* Ending second-class citizenship. We promote the cultural myth that any mother's son or daughter can grow up to be president, but it isn't even literally true.

The founders were concerned about foreign intrigue in the early days of an unsettled republic, so they limited the presidency to those who were "natural born" citizens. But the melting pot that is now the United States includes an astonishing 14.4 million Americans who were not born on U.S. soil and are therefore ineligible for the presidency -- a number sure to grow substantially. Among them are 30,000 members of the U.S. armed forces who risk life and limb to defend those enjoying first-class citizenship.

Any American who has been a citizen for at least 20 years should have the right to aspire to the White House.

I have barely scratched the surface in identifying long-delayed constitutional reforms. No thoughtful person will rush to change the Constitution, and it will take many years of work. But let the debate begin, and let us start the process that will lead to a 21st century Constitutional Convention.

Larry J. Sabato is the author of "A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country." He directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Larry Sabato Doesn’t Understand the Constitution
By Matt Mayer
Friday, October 19, 2007

In an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times on October 10, 2007, University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato argues for scrapping our Constitution and replacing it with a new one. He couldn’t be more wrong.

In support of his call to redo the Constitution, Sabato trots out a quote from Thomas Jefferson positing that a constitution is only good for nineteen years. The quote comes from a letter Jefferson sent to James Madison on September 6, 1789. In his response, Madison raised several fundamental flaws to Jefferson’s (and Sabato’s) reasoning. The one most applicable to our times is this one: “Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence, and agitate the public mind more frequently and more violently than might be expedient?” Does Sabato really believe that in 50-50 America, we would have any chance at compromising on a new constitution? After all, each side will try to inject its own solution to the “intractable challenges” that Sabato laments.

Even if we could, does Sabato really think we should throw-out the Constitution every nineteen years? If not, why rely upon Jefferson’s quote other than to get the kind of constitution he and the liberal-progressives would prefer? While Sabato only wants to change a few provisions, others will aim to change the parts Sabato thinks are okay. Such a process would wreak havoc on one of the strongest aspects of our Republic – the predictability and stability surrounding our rule of law (not to mention treaties). With the rule of law susceptible to changes every nineteen years, there would be little basis for investors to trust our financial markets, for people to feel secure in their property, and, most critically, for the people to feel secure in their rights. Jefferson was one of our greatest Founding Fathers and a brilliant man, but let us not forget that he was still only a man – susceptible like all of us to bad ideas.

The four “horribles” that Sabato cites as reasons we need to ditch the Constitution are largely baseless. First, Sabato calls for the need to restore “the war powers balance.” Under the Constitution, the crisis for which Sabato seeks to undo 220 years of history can be dealt with quite simply – the Congress has the power of the purse so can refuse to fund a war it has not authorized, which would force the Commander in Chief to end the war. Now, that would take courage, which most politicians today lack, but an absence of political courage should never be the reason we undo the foundation of our country.

Next, Sabato wants to end the “second-class citizenship” that he thinks exists because the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born American. At our current population count of 300 million, given that there are four former or current presidents still alive and roughly twenty more elections until the youngest alive today would presumably be dead, at best, twenty-four Americans out of 300 million will become President. It is such a small fraction that it isn’t worth noting what the odds of becoming President are for anyone alive today. The point is that it really isn’t that big of a deal and certainly is an enormous overstatement to say that the Constitution creates two tiers of citizenship based on odds worse than playing the lottery.

Then, Sabato raises the bogeyman of the Electoral College to argue for giving larger states even more electors “so that a candidate who loses the popular vote can no longer become president.” Factually, out of the fifty-five elections we have had since 1789, only on three occasions (1876, 1888, and 2000) has the winner of the Electoral College not also been the winner of the popular vote, which means it has happened in less than 6% of our presidential elections and only once in the last 120 years. That certainly doesn’t qualify as a crisis.

Sabato’s fictional crisis also fails to understand the purpose served by the Electoral College. When the Founding Fathers constructed our system of government, they carefully inserted many checks and balances against factions. Because America is a republic, not a direct democracy, the Founding Fathers sought to ensure that the elected federal government represented the various interests outside of Washington. The House of Representatives, being popularly elected by the people, served to protect the interests of the people within their congressional districts, and districts were allotted to states by population totals. The Founding Fathers felt that the small house districts would serve as a check on the ability of local factions to gain control of the levers of the federal government to enact bad laws or oppress opponents.

In contrast to the House of Representatives, the Senate was made-up of two senators from every state who were elected by the state legislatures. The senators’ primary role was to represent the interests of their states (which might, at times, be in conflict with the majority of people of the states). The fundamental reason why senators were elected by state legislatures was because that process guaranteed that the senators would fight in Washington for the interests of the states (more on that later). The equality of representation among the states served as a check so that larger states could not exert undue influence over the smaller states (which could be done in the house due to the allocation of seats by population).

The President was elected in a manner that gave both the people and the states a role in his election and he served to represent America writ large (both the people in America and the states that make-up America). Specifically, the people vote for electors in each state who are then certified by the state to support the candidate who received the most votes in the Electoral College process. This dual representation means that there will be times, rare as they have been, where the majority interest of the states overrides the majority interest of the people in order to further weaken the ability of a faction to control the Presidency. The last thing we need to do is further disenfranchise the states by totaling removing them from having any say in any of the elected federal branches.

Finally, Sabato raises what I think is the most significant issue in America today given the impact it has on our system of government; namely, that the Senate is not a very representative body. Sabato is right, but for the wrong reason. The Senate does not represent the interest it was designed to represent – the interest of the states. With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 during the Progressive Era, senators were elected popularly by the people, which disconnected them from being accountable to state legislatures. Not surprisingly, both the era of unfunded mandates and the massive expansion of the federal government during the New Deal and the Great Society Eras began soon thereafter – especially given that the passage of the federal income tax under the 16th Amendment in the same year provided for the means to fund the activities of the expanding federal government.

When states lost their check to rein in recalcitrant senators who voted for legislation that would grow federal power at the expense of state power or for legislation that would pose an unfunded mandate on the states, senators could support legislation that proved popular despite the short or long-term consequences of the legislation on the states. A recent example is the passage of the Real ID Act that requires states to add federal requirements to their driver’s license without receiving federal funds to adopt those requirements. Estimates put the price tag of the Real ID Act for states at over $11 billion.

In order to return to the constitutional structure wisely put in place by the Founding Fathers so that states have a voice and a check on Washington’s zeal for power, instead of scrapping the whole Constitution, we should repeal the 17th Amendment. The advantages of such a change are numerous. First, and most critically, it will revive our federalist system. Given the fact that over the last thirty-five years, several efforts were made to shrink the size of the federal government and all of those efforts failed, the principle of federalism appears mortally wounded. When senators are once again elected by state legislatures, the states will have a powerful check on the ability of Washington to expand its power and levy unfunded mandates on the states.

Next, such a move will place a far greater emphasis on which party controls the state legislature, thereby elevating the importance of state and local political races. This change will create a strong incentive for greater accountability to the voters. Such a change also will create more of an incentive for state and local governments to integrate statewide on activities and initiatives so that their senators can represent more effectively their interests in Washington. In a post-9/11 environment, such regional collaboration attains a higher level of urgency.

Most critically, with the states able to move power out of Washington, the creative vibrancy in Justice Louis Brandeis’ “laboratories of democracy” will compete to solve the “intractable challenges” in America today. After all, it wasn’t Washington that first reformed welfare; it was Wisconsin. It wasn’t Washington that first reformed education; it was Florida. It wasn’t Washington that first reformed health care; it was Massachusetts. Americans rightfully identify that Washington’s power over their lives is too pervasive. A Democracy Corps poll reports that 57% of Americans believe that government makes it harder for them to get ahead and 83% believe that if government has more money it will waste it. If we just get the power out of Washington, which is not possible without giving the states back their check on Washington, then the states will solve our tough issues.

Contrary to Sabato’s view, we don’t need a new constitution. History itself has demonstrated that a constitution can survive well beyond Jefferson’s nineteen-year limit. Just as the Progressives argued for a living constitution that they could interpret “according to the Darwinian principle," those who seek to throw-out the Constitution today believe that the Constitution prevents their kind of “progress” from happening. Good. That is just what the Founding Fathers intended, and Larry Sabato knows it.

Matt A. Mayer, President & CEO of Provisum Strategies LLC and International Studies Adjunct Professor at The Ohio State University, is a Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow.

Comment: From my perspective the commentaries present the great divide, and this is the single greatest problem we have in our whole ideological debate. We on the right see the U.S. Constitution as a corner stone that should only be modified under serious consideration, while the left seeks to modify as needed at the moment. We see greater diffusion of power, they see greater consolidation. They see more influence given by the population directly; we fear the popular swings in opinion that are driven by emotion rather than cautious reason.

However, there is hope in that Sabato acknowledges the power to make war has steadily grown in the Office of the President. Through the wisdom of the founding fathers, and of late because of Rep. Ron Paul, people are waking up to this growing realization. However Sabaot lacks the consistency of thought that the original U.S. Constitution had, in that diffusion of power was mandated across the board and to the states over the national government, not just to soley to war making.

To anyone that is libertarian and conservative minded, a supporter of the FairTax, desires the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, and those wanting to reduce the size of the federal government must know that the paradigms that separate us and those on the left are great. It is only through earnest debate and a renewed understanding of our history that we will have a chance of illustrating our beliefs. But it has to start in the classrooms and with the young.

Unfortunately, we have almost three generations, not counting the World War II Depression generation that has become entrenched with "socialistic" beliefs and norms. It will only be until these generations are no longer able to vote that we will have solid hope for the restoration of our culture and government. But until then we must educate our young and spread the word through them; they have to be the change agents guided by the rational hand.

And one final thought to all my Republican acquaintances; look beyond Ron Paul the man, and look at his message. I know that most of you will agree with 90 percent of his message. Please take that knowledge and apply it to your life and to your supported candidate and ask yourself, “does my life as our government now controls it, comport with Ron Paul and the founders visions; and does my candidate comport with the same.” If it does then you are on track, but if it doesn’t and you believe our present situation in this country certainly doesn’t comport with the founder’s vision, then you should support Ron Paul for President. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone other than Ron Paul that comports with the founders. Give it some thought.

Mafia 'Commandments' More Virtuous Than US Congress

Mafia 'commandments' found; By Alessandra Rizzo, Associated Press 8 November 2007.

“The list bars mobsters from hanging out in bars, from befriending police and being late for appointments. It also bars them from ‘taking possession of money that belong to others or other families.’

“How to treat women also features in the decalogue.

“‘You shall not look at wives of our friends,’ says one entry. ‘You shall respect your wife,’ says another. However, the Mafia comes first, as the fifth ‘commandment’ orders a mobster to ‘be available for Cosa Nostra at any moment, even if your wife is about to give birth.’”

Comment: Imagine if Congress had a quarter of the loyalty to our nation and the care of family that the mobsters do. Maybe the United States would be a different place.