Could a North American
Brazil: South America Union Born; By The Associated Press; 24 May 2008.
Via the New York Times:
“A new South American union was created as leaders of the continent’s 12 independent nations signed a treaty creating the organization and set out to devise a continental parliament. Some view the union, known as UNASUR, as the region’s version of the European Union.
Comment: Will we lose our sovereignty next?
Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy, by Ralph Rossum, was recommended by Ken M, member of the Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board.
From Amazon Books:
Book Description
Abraham Lincoln worried that the "walls" of the constitution would ultimately be levelled by the "silent artillery of time." His fears materialized with the 1913 ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment which eliminated federalism's structural protection, altering the very nature and meaning of federalism. This is the provocative argument of Ralph A. Rossum's new book which considers the forces unleashed by an amendment to install the direct election of
About the Author
Ralph A. Rossum is Director of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government and Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College. He is author of seven books, including "American Constitutional Law", (with G. Alan Tarr).
HT: Daily Paul
Warning: this video may cause most republicans to have nightmares, democrats to go insane, socialists and communists to turn to stone…we could only hope.
Note: This video was taped on
HT: Daily Paul
Warning: this video may cause most republicans to have nightmares, democrats to go insane, socialists and communists to turn to stone…we could only hope.
HT: Daily Paul
Warning: this video may cause most republicans to have nightmares, democrats to go insane, socialists and communists to turn to stone…we could only hope.
Inhofe, Sessions blast massive costs of global warming legislation.
Note: Go to the link below to see the videos included in this article at the “Business & Media Institute.”
“Worried about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon and beyond? Imagine if they were $6, $7 or even $8 a gallon. Those levels are a certain possibility should Congress pass cap-and-trade legislation, which could face a vote in early June.
“Oil is trading at record levels, in excess of $120 a barrel. Leading Republican Sens. James Inhofe (
“‘The studies show it would be directly affected, would be a $1.50 a gallon, in addition to what it is today,’ Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said to (BMI).
“Inhofe spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in
“‘So now I think we need to concentrate on what it will cost the American people,’ he said during the press conference. ‘To try to put it in a perspective people understand, if we had ratified, according to the Wharton School of Economics, the Kyoto Treaty, back five years ago, it would have cost about – between $300 and $330 billion – that was the range they had. This bill that’s up today is $471 billion – far more than that. And the question is, what do you get for it?’
“Sessions, a member of the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, went a step further. He cited sources that suggest the increase could be as much as $5 a gallon.”
“[L]et me tell you what’s heading down the tracks,” Sessions said to BMI on May 14. “In a few weeks, we expect that the cap-and-trade legislation that’s been voted out of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) Environment and Public Works Committee will be on the floor and according to the Environmental Protection Agency it will increase gas prices by $1.50. The National Association of Manufacturers says it will increase it as much as $5 per gallon.”
“Sessions proposed that money should be spent on energy investment versus a regulatory bureaucracy to enforce the provisions of the Lieberman-Warner bill.”
Note: Go to the link below to see the videos included in this article at the “Business & Media Institute.”
Comment: Ask yourself, who does my United States Senator support: the citizen, their respective state, or special interests? I think the answer is easy, and it’s not the first two.
The time has come to realize what the founders knew, and why they created Congress as they did. The House of Representatives was created to represent the people; and the Senate was created to represent the States. We must return to the founder’s intent; the time has come to repeal the 17th Amendment, truly before these oligarchs damage this country beyond repair.
HT: TradenCheese
This is an excellent commentary by Judge Andrew Napolitano, who appears on FOXNews regularly. Please note the audio is a little lacking but you’ll have little problem hearing the words of truth. I do not know when this was first aired.
Well, in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.
Professor Scott's point that COG planning may have already superseded the Constitution can be summarized by making an analogy. Let's assume that the police are not supposed to seize and sell a suspect's house unless a court has held a full trial and found that person guilty of a certain offense. And let's say that the police seize and sell somebody's house, but that the suspect's relatives cannot find any record that there has been a trial, let alone a finding of guilt by the court.
Comment: Impotent Congress? No kidding; when the balance of power was lost to the special interest groups in 1913 this is what we get, an Imperial President. Fools!
There were quite a number of good postings for the last month and a half, so I will break this up into two postings. Enjoy!
Regards,
BD
Ron Paul
By Dead Theologians
Paul want to revise the repeal of the 17th amendment which would stop voters from choosing US senators and allow members of the state legislature to choose them? Talk about keeping big government. 5. Mr. Paul wants to go back to using ...
Dead Theologians - http://dead-theologians.blogspot.com/
Primaries
By Christopher
I hadn't thought of this before, but it neatly parallels my argument that the 17th amendment removed responsibility from Senators to represent their state. Yet another reason democracy isn't really all it's cut out to be.
Musings of a Rogue Federalist - http://blog.ccraig.org/
One Person, One Vote
By Steve Schultz
... are not unprecedented: when the constitution was first framed, it stipulated that senators were to be selected by their repective state legislatures, not the people, and it took the 17th Amendment in 1913 to change that statute. ...
...Those Who Show Up - http://thosewhoshowup.blogspot.com/
The 17th Amendment and the Nationalized Senate
Nolan Chart LLC - Warrenton,VA,USA
The Repeal of the 17th Amendment would be an effective measure to decentralize the power of the federal government and would, in a very powerful measure, ...
USA sovereignty is being destroyed
Fleming Island Messenger - Orange Park,FL,USA
In 1913, 36 states passed the 17th Amendment to allow voters to directly elect their US Senators. Since then, the federal government has usurped many powers ...
States must force 17th Amendment showdown
By Devvy Kidd
All of that changed with the fraudulent ratification of the 17th Amendment.
Two solutions for entrenched politicians
Daily Herald -
Two of the solutions lie in: 1) term limits and 2) repealing the 17th Amendment. If elected officials knew they were only to have a relatively short time to ...
FEDS BACKTRACKING: AN ADMISSION ON NATIONAL ID
Our destiny is in our hands and time is running out. Research links:. 1 - Update on Bill Benson's critical First Amendment case 2 - States must force 17th Amendment showdown 3 - The gray wolf, the ESA & the 17th Amendment. National ID: ...
National News - http://tradencheese.com
Daily's-April 8th, 2008
By Pirate Irish Eddie(TMF)
The 17th Amendment to the
An Inconvenient Document - http://aninconvenientdocument.blogspot.com/
Founding intent
Salt Lake Tribune -
We advocate the repeal of both the 16th Amendment, which allows an income tax, and the 17th Amendment, which requires the direct election of senators. ...
You Say You'll Change the Constitution
American Spectator -
That is why the noxious 17th Amendment, which called for the popular election of senators, so upset the delicate balance between the states and the federal ...
Which is Worse: The 16th or 17th Amendment?
By FSK
The 17th amendment specified that Senators are directly elected by the people instead of the state legislatures. This removed an important check on Federal government power. The state legislatures would make sure that the Federal ...
FSK's Guide to Reality - http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/
Tamara and the 17th
By New Jovian Thunderbolt
Tamara has posted on a subject near and dear to my heart... repealing the 17th amendment. She wrote the essay I wish I had enough talent to write myself. Luckily, SHE does, so now I don't have to attempt it in my own fumbling manner. ...
New Jovian Thunderbolt - http://jovianthunderbolt.blogspot.com/
SayUncle » Repeal the 17th amendment
Well, to end most of the big money on political spending, repeal the 17th Amendment and END 100 statewide elections for Senators and have State Legisltures ...
You Say You'll Change the Constitution; By Lisa Fabrizio; The American Spectator; 4/9/2008.
“Gilbert Keith Chesterton once famously said, "It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that it has never really being tried." Part of the reason is that too many folks feel that Christianity -- with its moral absolutes and especially its prohibitions -- is outdated and unworthy of modern interest. One might also apply this gem of wisdom to those who rail against the
“One such of those is
“In an opinion piece for the
“When the Founders wrote and ratified the Constitution, many were dead set against the enumeration of specifics rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The thinking was, if we only set out certain rights as inviolate, a future government might trample at will on the rest. Sadly, we have seen that this is all too true.
“Even the beautifully and plainly written 9th and especially the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") have not stopped the carnage.
“IN FACT, MANY of our current problems are a result of too much monkeying with the Constitution. For example, Levinson and others complain about the dangers of a "lame duck" president with veto power, but had the 22nd Amendment not interfered with the process, this fear would be practically non-existent.
“The idea of electing the president popularly instead of using the Electoral College is one of the main planks of liberals everywhere, and one that is planted even in the minds of our schoolchildren. Levinson writes;
“Lest one believes that presidents, at least, represent the country as a whole, one must realize that our bizarre system of electing presidents through the Electoral College assures that almost no candidates any longer run truly national campaigns. So even if first-term presidents are held accountable via having to run for re-election, they focus only on a mixture of their "base" and "battleground" states, which leads to remarkable pandering to the latter and an almost total disregard for "wrong-color" states.
“Surely the professor realizes that if the Electoral College were scrapped, candidates would only need to campaign in areas of concentrated population; namely,
“And if supporters of the popular election of the executive have their way, the next thing to go would logically be the present form of the
“WHAT MR. LEVINSON and others like him fail to acknowledge can be summed up in the very title of our nation; the
“That is why the noxious 17th Amendment, which called for the popular election of senators, so upset the delicate balance between the states and the federal government. Senators, as opposed to representatives in "The People's House," were intended to be chosen by state legislatures to protect the interests of those states against federal power, not to add to it.
“Just as the cure for our wounded public morality is more religion, not less; so too, the only cure for our governmental woes is greater adherence to the Constitution as written, and not its constant dilution. Because, just as religion reins in sinful human behavior, the restrictions placed on
“It's not the
Comment: The fight is really coming down today between those that want to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and those that do not. Which side are you on?
"4.Why would Mr. Paul want to revise the repeal of the 17th amendment which would stop voters from choosing U.S. senators and allow members of the state legislature to choose them? Talk about keeping big government."
Comment: I wonder how this blogger accounts for the exponential rise in the federal government since 1913? Big hurdles are ahead of us friends when folks like this blogger don’t know “why and how” Congress was formed.
Income taxes are immoral, economically unsound; By Travis Lee Rubeck; Herald Journal.
HT: WL at Columbus Townhall
“By taxing a person's income, the state is claiming ownership rights to the private wealth of its citizens. This claim is contrary to the moral philosophy on which
“In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson made it clear that Man should not live for the State; the State should exist to serve
“Neither of these essential documents acknowledges the right of the state to seize any portion of a law-abiding citizen's wealth. Instead, emphasis is laboriously given to the means by which the state can protect the individual rights of its citizens. The only exception is the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution, which provides for ‘just compensation’ whenever it is implemented.
The only moral justification for any form of government is the protection of individual rights. No individual has a right to another person's property. Income is wealth, and wealth is property. Since neither the state nor the individual has a right to the property of private law-abiding citizens, any income taxation is unjust and unconstitutional. To support income taxation is to acknowledge that citizens are not entirely private and must sacrifice their productivity to the ‘needs’ of the state.
“This philosophy is not only unjust, it is economically unsound and detrimental to American prosperity. GDP is the most accurate measure of the absolute and relative power of any nation. Nations that can buy security are as powerful as those who have large standing armies. If a nation seeks stability, improving GDP is the goal.
“The economic interference of government should be limited to that which stimulates the economy. The state should create the best economic atmosphere possible for production and consumption.
“The founding economic policy of the
“Income taxes discourage the productivity of profit-motivated individuals. As a result, the price of all consumables increases as the level of productivity decreases. This stagnation affects all consumers, regardless of their wealth.
The
“In order to fund the federal protection of our rights, however, there must be some form of taxation. A voluntary consumption tax is the only method of taxation that is in accordance with the fundamentals of American political-economic philosophy.
“When properly implemented, a consumption tax fully funds the civic duties of the state. It is also completely voluntary, as people are only taxed when they make a purchasing choice. American capitalism is such that big earners are often big spenders. When consumption is taxed, big spenders foot the tax bill for those who choose thriftiness and frugality.
“This does not affect production; it only discourages inefficiency in producer-consumer trade. When kept at a minimum, such a tax encourages frugal consumption. According to the law of supply and demand, the wiser the consumer, the more efficient the producer, the better the product, the more valuable the product to the consumer, the more consumption of the product, the more tax revenue, the better protection of individual rights, the more liberty.
“In Congress, there is now a bill called ‘HR 25,’ which lays out the plans for such a system of taxation. I encourage people of all political beliefs to research this bill, commonly known as ‘The Fair Tax.’”
Comment: Great article Mr. Rubeck! However I disagree with the author on one point, in that consumption tax is not the only way to adhere to American political-economic philosophy. Ron Paul recommends that we cut spending and rely on the import-export tax. This is the way our country operated prior to 1913, and he also points out that if the income tax was removed and was not replaced, we would still have enough tax revenue coming in to keep the government running as it is now. However, one argument made by FairTaxers is that the consumption tax would allow for a gradual elimination of taxation upon the citizenry, which could be phased out down the road also.
But back to the article; the author is spot on concerning the immoral nature of the income tax. I recently got called ‘a Kool-Aid drinking lefty’ by a SOBAlliance blogger, oh yeah and a ‘twit’ as well, because I told him the same thing in reference to his support of the flat tax. This really demonstrates the hurdle we face for any tax reform plan because there are so many people in this country, not only on the left but the right as well, that have no concept of the moral and ethical issues surrounding taxation.
Given that, the collectivist have done an exceedingly good job convincing most Americans that a government has any and all right to tax you as it sees fit. And I would like to point out that at the last meeting of the Trilateral Commission, yes there is such a thing, they called for global taxation ability because they believe we, the
Again we really have some serious hurdles to get over before we return to an environment of liberty and freedom, and limited government. But with citizens like Mr. Rubeck, Americans for Fair Taxation, and Dr. Ron Paul we may be turning the corner.
Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board member Mike P. posts a large volume of really interesting articles on the discussion board for our group dealing with a variety of topic from the 16th and 17th Amendments, Federal Reserve, and Electoral College to name a few. He has incredible research skills pulling in unexpected articles from the far reaches of cyberspace, which I thought might interest you. Here is a summary of some of Mike’s latest posts.
Federal Reserve To Nationalize All US Banks?
The
The Fed has been criticised for its rescue of Bear Stearns, which critics say has degenerated into a taxpayer gift to rich bankers.
A senior official at one of the Scandinavian central banks told The Daily Telegraph that Fed strategists had stepped up contacts to learn how
On
As annual spending bills wind their way through Congress this year, there are ongoing battles over earmarked funding for members’ pet projects.
To get a sense of what the battle is about, check out this newly released list of earmarks in the House Interior appropriations bill.
People scour such lists looking for embarrassing bridges to nowhere in
But the real issue is federalism, not earmarks. Many of these funding projects are not federal responsibilities at all. Look at all the local sewer facilities on the list under the EPA. Why can’t
The Panic of 1907 was a credit contraction of that year which was used as an argument for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. It knocked the stock market down from DJI 95 in January to DJI 53 in November. It is also called the Rich Man’s Panic because, although it upset quite a few people on Wall Street, there were no effects on the regular economy, and the average man did not know that anything had happened.
The argument in favor of a central bank was that a free economy was subject to such contractions which arose without warning or explanation, like a tornado in the American West, and if J.P. Morgan had not been present acting like a central bank, it would have been far worse.
The American free economy (in the North) dates from 1785, when Noah Webster began his campaign to legalize interest. If there is something deficient in this system, then why did it take 122 years to manifest itself in a problem? Scientists in any field quickly learn how much time is likely to pass between cause and effect. A chemist is likely to see the effect just a few seconds after he mixes two chemicals. A political movement which enacts new legislation is likely to see its effect perhaps 5 or 10 years after the legislation becomes law. A person who adopts a new diet and exercise program is likely to see some effect a few weeks after starting…
The gray wolf, the ESA & the 17th Amendment
Ranchers in
Ron Paul on the Glen Beck Show
On April 8th in 1913, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect. To anybody concerned with checks and balances and separation of powers who had actually read the Constitution, it's hard to see how this could be considered a good idea. As a matter of fact, it's hard to see how it could not be seen as undermining the very concept of a federal republic.
HT: Michael L. at the Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Board
This interactive graphic that depicts the 2009 Federal Budget and where your taxes go. It’s worth a look for any concerned citizen.
