To Defend The United States Constitution: The Next Step! Unite! For A Free People!

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Your comment of the bailouts being

"rather distasteful"

is illuminating.

Is that the harshest criticisim you can muster up of "The Bailouts"?

You certianly are in the minority of The U.S. citizens then, as recent polling found over 70% disagreed with the plan. thinkprogress.org...

68% of citizens think that the bailout funds are going to those same who caused the meltdown in the firstplace!

Regardless of anyones opinions this threads focus is on Defending the Constitution, not defending opinions.

Do you rely on the New York Times only as your constitutional law source? Just because the New York times quotes someone in defense of "The Bailouts" does not deem the extortion of the taxpayers constitutional.

To legitimately invoke the commerce power, Congress must show not only that a federal program is necessary, but also that it is proper-that is, the program does not violate other foundational principles, such as federalism, separation of powers, and limited government. Congress has not made that showing.

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers ... shall be vested in a Congress." A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paul son Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.

www.cato.org...



[edit on 11-10-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by A52FWY
If you consider your labor private property,

My labour isnt private property. I sign a contract with a company to give my labour for money. Whatever that company chooses to do with itself is not my decision as I am merely a worker there. I am entitled to my opinion but my labour isnt private property, hence me recieving an income.

then the government nationalizing your industry (health care, for exmple)

The government is not nationalizing my industry. The GM assembly line where I work at is the place where I give my labour for income. If that company chooses to take bail-out money from the government thats their choice. I am merely a worker giving up my labour for income.

As for healthcare this is a public option. For all the talk about how horrible government run healthcare is, there certainly is a fear regarding whether these private companies can compete.

makes you a government employee

If I didnt like my company giving up its assets for government assistance, I am more than welcome to leave that job.

I suppose freedom is the basic constitutional issue.

Indeed it is, although I hardly saw any forceful take over by the federal government. The oversized corporations decided to take government loans to get themselves out of the cr*p they found themselves in. Breach of capitalist values... true.. freedoms being taking away? Nope.

SG

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Your comment of the bailouts being

"rather distasteful"

is illuminating.

Is that the harshest criticisim you can muster up of "The Bailouts"? e

Yep, because I know the bailouts are as the result of an unrestrained market that grew too fat for its own good. You want to be angry at the bail-outs, but ignore how the economy came to be in the first place.

Capitalism ran free and as the result grew so fat DC was influenced, what
followed was black september then the bailouts.

Your getting worked up about the bail-outs, you ignore the source of the problems. Those lobbyists in DC aint going away either, thanks to the good'ol free market (still unrestrained might I add) allows them to run all over DC as well. You want me to give harsh criticism to the bail-outs?? The bail-outs are the result of the faulty system of the free-market, that showed it could not take responsibility for itself.

You certianly are in the minority

That statement was regarding healthcare the as I took it. As for the consensus over the bail-outs I am well aware of the majority not supporting it, but I dont fully dismiss the bail-outs themselves. The corporations grew fat and w ere found to have their hands in too many cookie jars. Did that justify fully the bail-outs? No, but it certainly would have been ugly if congress didnt act soon over the pending collapse of these giant companies, so large they would have dragged us down further.

Thats my view though.

Regardless of anyones opinions this threads focus is on Defending the Constitution, not defending opinions.

My replies did not concern merely "opinion". You stated this government is stripping freedoms away constitutionally and was being unconstitution, and I likewise replied with sources.

Do you rely on the New York Times only as your constitutional law source? Just because the New York times quotes someone in defense of "The Bailouts"

You should read the article more clearly. The discussion was regarding the rules of the supreme court and where the justification for the bail-outs came from... which was from court rulings which extended the powers of the congress in justification for matters back then. Congress now used the rulings from the supreme court back in the 30's to justify their role in the financial crises.

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers principle-in particular,

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

In the case of healthcare and assuring that these large corporations didnt collapse and force the country into a depression, I'd say they were insuring the general welfare of the nation. Maybe bailing out the banks does not sound too much as insuring welfare, but considering the dependence of the market for these corporations to survive, I doubt it would have pritty for my welfare if they were to collapse.

SG


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


That is a gread thead of yours...I would reccomend everyone read it and watch the videos



While "Bailout" 1 was heisted under the Bush Administration...
"Bailout" 2 was heisted under the Obama Administration, making both administrations guilty.

Supposedly under the guise of "reform" Obama has his FRP...

In reality it gives the private banking cartel Federal Reserve more power FS 89 page PDF

The FSB appears to be a step closer toward global monetary control under the direction of the G-7 dominated BIS, IMF and other international lending agencies. Given its inclusion in Obama’s financial reform proposal makes the entire package suspect and perhaps just cover for the above-outlined sinister scheme - as well as letting Wall Street be self-regulating.GlobalResearch.CA

ATS

[edit on 11-10-2009 by burntheships]

I wonder where all of you where when Bush was flushing this country down the toilet.

When he gave us the kool aid about wars of defeating tyranny and spreading democracy excuses to invade countries in order to make him and his people rich.

When Bush has our economy imploding faster than the towers of the WTC.

Sometimes I just wonder....

Another excellent thread. S&F.

I wonder how many people actually know they have the right to do that. Thanks for bringing this up.

well i grew up in the town where they made the cloth for the first flag.
the local government was so impressed that they built the sewage plant next to the foundation of the mill.
man they really care about the history dont they?
its time to defend the flag and the constitution too.
too bad it may already too late.

The US Constitution needs replaced by one which recognises the importance (sovereignty ?) of the individual states and which delegates to Washington D.C. only those items where those states have a common interest in coming together i.e. defence, foreign affairs. It needs to restore the connection between the electorate and the elected, it needs to provide a non partisan Head of State around whom most Americans may unite with an executive subject to regular & rigorous examination by both Houses of Congress.

Until then you're stuck in a timewarp of the late 1700's.

One of the main problems with the US constitution is that it's been upheld for rather too long. Too many checks, too many balances, too much inertia. It needs completely swept aside.

reply to post by burntheships


I think you discount needlessly the very sincere efforts of your lawmakers....
true, they set up 9/11
true they invade countries needlessly.
True that most people are very upset with this, whilst being confused and confounded by their patriotic duties.

How about you make a stand; get up and try to do the job of representing your people instead of just whinging about your peoples representatives...

Since you seem to represent your own opinion so well, how about you go out and try to do something for a cause bigger than yourself? You seem not to understand that liberty... freedom... justice... are all things that arent granted... They have to be fought for, argued for, legislated for.

I hear nothing in your post that is constructive... and would prefer this kind of post to be stuck in the "Whinging Pom" bin as most of us australians would call it... For an american you seem not to have a very good idea of what it is to be american... there are responsibilities that go with your rights... Just simply criticising is fine in and of itself... but your founding fathers knew that America is a dream, that only by daily working at it will be fulfilled. What are your honest and constructive ideas in making your country better?

Dave

reply to post by burntheships


Yet I want to say, no matter what we ask for, is it apt to the people on power, you say this, they say this is what is better for you.

Why is this different from a dictatorship? because all of us would be dictators, and trying to make everyone happy is impossible, it really is, yet if we all follow the morals with out politicly correct, everything would be much better and at the same time much worse.

there is no form of government that can make everyone happy, because nobody wants to share.

EDIT: sorry for the bad grammar, I am a little drunk hating on the system!!



[edit on 11-10-2009 by Arsenis]

Why does congress get to vote for us, only the people of the United States should only be allowed to vote, congress doesn't even read the bills they just vote.

We the People should be controling all laws and bills by voting on bills and laws once a year were we get to read the bills for 6 months then we vote, and not thier ridiculouis 1000 page bills either.

The president should only be thier for ideas and his direction he wants to take the country and a mouth piece. With no power at all without the people, We need to be heard and will we be heard sooner or later one way or another.

While I find the constitution to be an amazing achievement, it has it's flaws.

It leaves allowances for income tax, and puts to much power in a centralized government.

But the money changers don't have to obey the constitution, and that's who runs the show.

reply to post by Boom Slice


I agree with your posted comments especially concerning Gold and Silver aka know as the Gold Standard. It seems that some who wished to derail from the obvious centrality of the OP focused on "Not Amend"
Appreciate that you moved past that!

That was to me obvious, but to others a derailment. Hence, changed title to Defend The Constitution. Putting that aside, on to the 16th amendment.

While the 16th amendment gets the bad rap for allowing the IRS...I have done some research on this and found that while the 16th is complicated, actually the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant the federal government any new taxing power.

More can be read about that here:

Since the Sixteenth Amendment is not the source of the federal government’s power to impose income taxes and did not authorize any new type of tax, those groups and individuals who claim the Amendment was not properly ratified are beating a dead horse. Producing historical documents that show the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified 91 years ago simply proves that politicians in 1913 were as corrupt as the scoundrels we have in office today.

www.thepriceofliberty.org...



[edit on 11-10-2009 by burntheships]

We need an Antoinette finisher here...

That is all.

Originally posted by Bunch
I wonder where all of you where when Bush was flushing this country down the toilet.

When he gave us the kool aid about wars of defeating tyranny and spreading democracy excuses to invade countries in order to make him and his people rich.

When Bush has our economy imploding faster than the towers of the WTC.

Sometimes I just wonder....

Actually I was writing congress, protesting, writing letters to editors, sending e-mails to friends and family, and causing as much noise as possible.

Now I'm doing the same thing all over again. This administration is no better than the last in all honesty. Theyhave made small steps for the poor by expanding SCHIP, mortgage assistance, and passing a credit card bill of rights. However, they threaten to taken it back with taxes on employer provided healthcare, sin taxes on soda, a health care reform bill loaded with taxes that aren't to be considerred taxes. The list goes on but you get the point.

Now we don't even ned to get started on foreign policy (still got gitmo and two wars) or civil rights. We still have warantless wiretapping and the PATRIOT Act. So, I continue to protest just like before.

I actually find it rather offensive that people act like if you protest now you must be a right wing nut. It was less than a year ago that "liberals" were protesting and crying over wire taps and wars. Now they act like if you protest those things you are a racist or you want to nullify the election. The hypocrisy flows both ways.

The sad part is that there are so many hypocrites out there that they blind people to the fights of true patriots. They blind themselves and the innocent to the true plight of the nation by creating a wall of white noise that drowns out the truth.

If you stand for something stand for it always. Don't change your stance just because "your party" is in power. Your party cares no more about you than it does about the ants marching across the sidewalk.

Just to adress the economy. . . Anybody that thinks this is Obama or G. W. Bush's fault alone is mistaken. Take courses on micro and macro economics. Afterwards read about the federal reserve and economic policy since the turn of the twentieth century.

*sigh* let's all look at the US Constitution here is a good link

And now for an incomplete list of violations of the the US Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8: IRS and the Federal Reserve, both have their heads appointed/approved by the President are in direct violation of Congress's duty

Article 1, Section 9: When was the last time we heard about the nationally owned gold reserves that were given to the Federal Reserve? There is legislation to audit the Fed when section 9 clearly allows for it to happen.

Article 1, Section 10: Every state in the union accepts Federal Reserve Notes and the courts enforce it as legal currency.

Article 2, Section 2: How many of the czars have been officially approved by the Senate?

Article 3: The Supremes have been relatively good lately, but have created laws from the bench in the past in numerous cases.

Article 4, Section 1: Gay Marriage, Medical (word that can not be used on ATS), Federal Speed Limit Laws...etc.

Article 4, Section 2: State-Wide Smoking Bans restrict the liberties of business owners to operate their business yet in other states they would be free to have a smoking establishment. varying gun laws between the states when the 2nd amendment is very clear.

Article 4, Section 3: West Virginia...big time violation if Virginia was not allowed to cede legally...that whole purpose of the Civil War of what a state can and cannot do.

Article 4, Section 4: Dropped the ball on 9/11 didn't we?

Article 5: 16th Amendment which eliminated an important chunck of Article 1, Section 9

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article 6: Numerous expansions of federal power without an amendment to grant such power isn't upholding the Constitution in the least. Most recently Cash for Clunkers program and the Healthcare Reform Bill(s)

Article 7: Was only stating that it took 9 states to ratify the Constitution. But if we had a time machine, I bet the current crooks would find a way to circumvent that one too.

If you really like I can hit the Amendments for examples of violations in another post. But I think the fact that all six of the standing guideline Articles of the Constitution is enough to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that the federal government has and is continuing to act unconstitutionally. Let us just hope that the US Patent Office never grants a patent of a time travel device.


[edit on 11-10-2009 by Ahabstar]

Well hold on to your actions a while longer, we only have canidates for 1/3 of all the offices that will need filling immediately. if you are a viable canidate for public office, please register the normal way - and on your campaign literature and signs -- use the Gadsden Flag. you will be elected and you will have to perform under the constitution. so if you have never read it, you need to ... because there is no other way ...

also, if you are a Lawyer - you can not be elected - see missing Article 13 of the Constitution -- pre civil war... ok.. any title of nobility is barred from service.

and for you people that demand Justice - well any nation that harbors a wanted criminal from the American Justice System will be dealt with.

* side note: uncle sam is getting desperate for New Recruits to further its aggression against non existant enemies... you kill my brother - you created an Insurgent.. thats what they are bringing to our shores... stop it before it starts here.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Is there some reason "Communism" is always the big Bug-A-Boo when the righties come screaming out of the rotten woodwork?

Yes, there is a good reason. Communism demands government control over the live's of its people. It runs completely opposite to any rational idea of freedom.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
First off, *This* government didn't start the bailout program. The *last* one did.

True, the Bush admin did start it. And the Obama admin continued it. Instead of "Change we can believe in," we got more of the same old nonsense, "Chains we can believe in." They're both equally as dubious in my opinion.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
This is the cancer stage of capitalism as an economic system (it is NOT a "political system" as so many seem to fail to grasp). We're living in the part where capitalism unrestrained and unrestricted infects every aspect of life, and suddenly everything, including your very soul, has a price tag on it.

Why has Capitalism failed us over the years? It hasn't. Because the reality is, we haven't had TRUE Capitalism since around 1879 (Sherman Anti-Trust Act). What we have had is a Mixed Economy with government control over just about every aspect of business you can think of. That IS NOT Capitalism. In True Capitalism the market: sets prices, sets wages, determines which business live and which ones do not, which products become popular and which ones go away. When the government gets involved and starts controlling all of these things, you run in to all kinds of problems like we're seeing today. Do not blame Capitalism for the mess we're in because we haven't been living under it!

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The mega-rich keep getting richer while everyone who *isn't* already rich gets in the breadline. Hard work will *never* make you a rich man. Hell, anymore hard work won't even pay rent for a shoebox-sized apartment in the average city.

Capitalism has nothing to do with money and everything to do with freedom. In a true free capitalist society, yes, some people will get rich more than others. Oh well. It's just your jealously that can't handle that truth. But you must handle it, because it is the rich people, who own businesses, who create jobs. I myself have never been employed by a poor person.

I'm sorry you believe people don't have the possibility of becoming rich from hard work. I see it happening every day. It's what keeps me and milliions of others going. It is nder Communism that you have absolutely no chance of becoming rich. The government keeps you under their thumb and tries to keep everyone equal. Give me Capitalism any day. And yes, I shudder at the thought of Communism, because under it I cannot be free.

I don't think the issue is that the government has gone rogue or that they are no longer accountable. They are just accountable to the wrong groups of people. Specifically the elite. When you really consider it we essentially have two options, big business that is totally unaccountable to the people who have no stock in them, or big government which is at least partially accountable to the voters. Not great options, but considering how most Americans shudder at the very thought of worker control, my vote if for big government that at least takes SOME responsibility over big business that takes none any day.

My contender for U.S. President wrote an excellent peice on The Constitution. Here is an excerpt:

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution. Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention?

www.infowars.com...