recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
This court, the Supreme Court of the United States has been obsessive about interpreting the Constitution, with [cont.]
case law taking a back seat. It is evident in their opinions. The same will be true in the future. Their Constructionist view is founded in Jefferson, the mentor of James Madison, who was the protege' of Jefferson. Never forget that when deciding who the father of the Constitution and especially, the Bill of Rights. Read the letters between the two. If you know too, who was the mentor of Jefferson, as well as his instructor, and that Jefferson was his protege', another of the "authors" of the Constitution, you will then know who was the real father of founding of this country, through the Constitution. Any officer of the state who fails to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, as he is sworn to so do, is my sworn enemy and I will do what I can to defeat that enemy--Author Unknown.
Monday, March 22, 2010
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; [cont.]
it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee (1886) 118 U.S. Supreme Court 425, 6, 1121, 30 L, Ed. 178.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Letter to Senator Jim Webb
March 8, 2008
Hon. Jim Webb
U.S. Senate
248 RSOB
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Webb:
As a follow-up to my letter to you on March 5, I would like to provide you with my views on what the federal government actually might be able to do within the very limited parameters allowed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The Commerce Clause, I believe, would allow for a few things that would be potentially constructive. First, I would like to point out my utter disbelief that I have thus far heard so very little about the ongoing regulation of the health insurance companies already taking place at the state level which many in Congress would prefer to usurp. Each of the 50 states, republics by the way, has an insurance regulating agency. In some states, the insurance commissioner is elected; in others, they are appointed, usually by the governor.
The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, although it has been improperly used for more than that in years past, albeit beyond the limits of its constitutional authority. The first item that can be done is to repeal the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies; health, property & casualty, etc. I can’t believe they have had the exemption to date anyway. Secondly, again under the Commerce Clause, states must treat all companies equally, who are doing interstate business. Thus, in my opinion, they would have to open their borders to all interstate companies, on an equal footing to their own in-state companies without discrimination.
As much as I would like to see tort reform, I believe the federal government would have the same difficulty enforcing such a reform in state courts. Article I, Section 8 was spelled out specifically, to let all governing authorities be aware of the very limited role allowed for the federal government, vis-à-vis the states, vice versa. They did that for obvious reasons to prevent what is now happening; that which you and I now are witnessing, to prevent federal usurpation. The two things I mentioned above would be constructive means for competition and hopefully better pricing of health and other types of insurance.
It is my opinion that most of both versions of healthcare reform are largely unconstitutional, as will be the administration version. As you well know, several lawyerly Senators have been preparing themselves to go straight to the US Supreme Court assuming any healthcare reform vehicle should pass. These Senators will be joined in their lawsuit by a substantial majority of the states, probably 35, to estop and stay implementation until a ruling is issued on the constitutionality of such vehicle. You and I know that the ruling will be, in the least, 5-4 for the plaintiffs. No one should be deluded in thinking otherwise. The vote on the constitutionality of the individual provision will be no less than 5-4.
In view of that, what’s the point? So you can tell the constituents you tried? What you are essentially telling your constituents is that you tried to wire around the Constitution but the big, bad Supreme Court would not allow it.
I served on staff for two Governors, a Member of Congress, and Appropriations Committee Staff. In 30 years, half of which was in public service, I have never seen such a charade. I am embarrassed, as a Jeffersonian Democrat that my party and my government would spit on the Constitution and on our forefathers, who provided us with such a magnificent and sacrosanct document. To even contemplate we could insure all of the uninsured is a fanciful panacea, perpetrating a lie and false hope to those constituents. It will never happen and we all know it.
As a former staffer, let me just say I do not want to tie up valuable staff time by responding to this letter. You implied that my views would be helpful in the continuing debate on healthcare reform. I am herewith providing my views and rather than tying up staff by writing me a response, just please have someone take 3 minutes to relate to Senator Webb my views on what the federal government/Senate might do in order to assist the states as expressed above.
Thank you again,
Steve Matthews
Hon. Jim Webb
U.S. Senate
248 RSOB
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Webb:
As a follow-up to my letter to you on March 5, I would like to provide you with my views on what the federal government actually might be able to do within the very limited parameters allowed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
The Commerce Clause, I believe, would allow for a few things that would be potentially constructive. First, I would like to point out my utter disbelief that I have thus far heard so very little about the ongoing regulation of the health insurance companies already taking place at the state level which many in Congress would prefer to usurp. Each of the 50 states, republics by the way, has an insurance regulating agency. In some states, the insurance commissioner is elected; in others, they are appointed, usually by the governor.
The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, although it has been improperly used for more than that in years past, albeit beyond the limits of its constitutional authority. The first item that can be done is to repeal the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies; health, property & casualty, etc. I can’t believe they have had the exemption to date anyway. Secondly, again under the Commerce Clause, states must treat all companies equally, who are doing interstate business. Thus, in my opinion, they would have to open their borders to all interstate companies, on an equal footing to their own in-state companies without discrimination.
As much as I would like to see tort reform, I believe the federal government would have the same difficulty enforcing such a reform in state courts. Article I, Section 8 was spelled out specifically, to let all governing authorities be aware of the very limited role allowed for the federal government, vis-à-vis the states, vice versa. They did that for obvious reasons to prevent what is now happening; that which you and I now are witnessing, to prevent federal usurpation. The two things I mentioned above would be constructive means for competition and hopefully better pricing of health and other types of insurance.
It is my opinion that most of both versions of healthcare reform are largely unconstitutional, as will be the administration version. As you well know, several lawyerly Senators have been preparing themselves to go straight to the US Supreme Court assuming any healthcare reform vehicle should pass. These Senators will be joined in their lawsuit by a substantial majority of the states, probably 35, to estop and stay implementation until a ruling is issued on the constitutionality of such vehicle. You and I know that the ruling will be, in the least, 5-4 for the plaintiffs. No one should be deluded in thinking otherwise. The vote on the constitutionality of the individual provision will be no less than 5-4.
In view of that, what’s the point? So you can tell the constituents you tried? What you are essentially telling your constituents is that you tried to wire around the Constitution but the big, bad Supreme Court would not allow it.
I served on staff for two Governors, a Member of Congress, and Appropriations Committee Staff. In 30 years, half of which was in public service, I have never seen such a charade. I am embarrassed, as a Jeffersonian Democrat that my party and my government would spit on the Constitution and on our forefathers, who provided us with such a magnificent and sacrosanct document. To even contemplate we could insure all of the uninsured is a fanciful panacea, perpetrating a lie and false hope to those constituents. It will never happen and we all know it.
As a former staffer, let me just say I do not want to tie up valuable staff time by responding to this letter. You implied that my views would be helpful in the continuing debate on healthcare reform. I am herewith providing my views and rather than tying up staff by writing me a response, just please have someone take 3 minutes to relate to Senator Webb my views on what the federal government/Senate might do in order to assist the states as expressed above.
Thank you again,
Steve Matthews
Students protesting higher tuition costs? LOL! Thanks to these idiots who put Hussein in office, it won't be [cont.]
long before only the top 1% of the socioeconomic strata can afford to send little Eddie and Chiclet to college; that would be the top 1% who Hussein and his sheep love to hate. Perfect! Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaa...
Thanks 2 these idiots putting Hussein N office, it won't be long before only the top 1% can afford 2 send little Eddie & Chiclet 2 Havad.
Students protesting higher tuition costs? LOL! [cont.]
LA Times Quote of the Week: "Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange [cont.]
urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words." --columnist Burt Prelutsky
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Climate Change Hoax--Can You Say RICO Al Gore? Watch http://bit.ly/9jI9U9. You will learn why "climate change" [cont.]
is a hoax & why Al Gore will be indicted under RICO statutes & sued by his stockholders.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Author of Constitution and Bill of Rights http://bit.ly/cORie0
Thomas Jefferson was the mentor of James Madison. Conversely, James Madison, amongst others, was a protege of Thomas Jefferson. James Madison,along with a host of others--Dickinson, Wythe, Sherman, Morris, Adams, Paine, etc., are given credit for being co-authors while Jefferson was away in Paris. If you read the plethora of letters solicited by Madison and others, from Jefferson, you will see where the vast bulk of the above referenced documents were the brainchild & product of Thomas Jefferson. If you do not have the various books which contain these letters, as do I, you will find many of them at: http://bit.ly/cORie0
Author of Constitution & Bill of Rights
Thomas Jefferson was the mentor of James Madison. Conversely, James Madison, amongst others, was a protege of Thomas Jefferson. James Madison,along with a host of others--Dickinson, Wythe, Sherman, Morris, Adams, Paine, etc., are given credit for being co-authors while Jefferson was away in Paris. If you read the plethora of letters solicited by Madison and others, from Jefferson, you will see where the vast bulk of the above referenced documents were the brainchild & product of Thomas Jefferson. If you do not have the various books which contain these letters, as do I, you will find many of them at: http://bit.ly/cORie0
My other posts are at: http://tunkin67.posterous.com/
My other posts are at: http://tunkin67.posterous.com/
Text of My Letter to U.S. Senator Jim Webb-VA
Thank you very much for updating me on healthcare reform. It is pretty clear the House will not have the votes for this latest White House misadventure in managing national healthcare. Thus, you will likely not to even have to give it much consideration. Thankfully too, the Virginia Legislature passed the vehicle to put a stop to federal overreach in the Commonwealth. It may just be a moot point.
Comity Clause aka Privileges & Immunities Clause
It is clear to me the redundant Comity Clause or Privileges [rights--see Madison] & Immunity Clause, 14th Amendment & Art 4 Sect 2, are being quite overplayed. The Bill of Rights express specifically those which are the rights of every citizen of the United States and the 50 states [republics]. These Rights were always intended to apply to both the States & Federal governments no matter what any revisionist [Progressive] might stipulate. Of course, I am one who believes the other 17 Amendments are but redundant and superfluous, assuming one can read. The Bill of Rights are mine; you can have the rest of them.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Nullification
"The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government."
--Thomas Jefferson http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/01/its-not-about-political-parties-its-about-liberty/
States Should Oppose Federal Usurpation
Thomas Jefferson: “I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic, and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the Federal Court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.
Under the power to regulate commerce they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and, aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare.
And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance.
Are we then to stand to our arms ? No! That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.
But, in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights, to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms, to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress (log-rolling, etc.) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.” Letter to W.B. Giles, 1825
State and Federal Governments are Equal Partners
Thomas Jefferson: “It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations, a spirit of forbearance and compromise, therefore, and not of encroachment and usurpation, is the healing balm of such a constitution ; and each party should prudently shrink from all approach to the line of demarcation, instead of rashly overleaping it, or throwing grapples ahead to haul to hereafter. But, finally, the peculiar happiness of our blessed system is, that in differences of opinion between these different sets of servants, the appeal is to neither, but to their employers peaceably assembled by their representatives in Convention. This is more rational than the jus fortioris, or the cannon's mouth, the ultima et sola ratio regum." Letter to Spencer Roane, 1821.
State Governments are Barriers of Our Liberty
Thomas Jefferson: "But the true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our revolution and present government found us possessed. Seventeen distinct states, amalgamated into one, as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration, regularly organized with a legislature and governor resting- on the choice of the people, and enlightened by a free press, can never be so fascinated by the arts of one man, as to submit voluntarily to his usurpation. Nor can they be constrained to it by any force he can possess. While that may paralyze the single state in which it happens to be encamped, sixteen others, spread over a country of two thousand miles diameter, rise up on every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional legislature, and for action by their governor, constitutionally the commander of the militia of the state, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms, and that militia, too, regularly formed into regiments and battalions, into infantry, cavalry and artillery, trained under officers, general and subordinate, legally appointed, always in readiness, and to whom they are already in habits of obedience. The republican government of France was lost without a struggle, because the party of " un et indivisible " had prevailed, no provincial organizations existed to which the people might rally under authority of the laws, the scats of the directory were virtually vacant, and a small force sufficed to turn the legislature out of their chamber, and to salute its leader chief of the nation. But with us, sixteen out of seventeen states rising in mass, under regular organization, and legal commanders, united in object and action by their Congress, or, if that be in duresse, by a special convention, present such obstacles to an usurper as for ever to stifle ambition in the first conception of that object. Letter to De Tracy, 1811"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)