Last updated: 12/20/2012

(September 8, 2010)

Sometimes, the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS), will try to find out the "Original Intent" of the Framers of the Constitution in order to make a ruling on particular issues before them. Such as they did when they dredged up an obscure letter Thomas Jefferson had written to a Baptist church in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. In it, he meant to assure the church that there would be no national church in this new government, as there had been in Europe and had been the cause of so much trouble and grief. Instead, the SCOTUS has been using the phrase Jefferson used, "separation of church and State," to remove God from the public sphere. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life. Never mind that there were numerous letters, records, journals that stated the new nation was founded upon the Christian principles of justice, fair play and deference.

Now we come to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, declared ratified 9 July 1868, which has been the object of much misinterpretation even by the SCOTUS. But first consider that the 14th aught to be considered null and void but especially illegal and unConstitutional. It was conceived in the heart of vengeance, and born of dishonesty and hypocrisy. How?

The Constitution states "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...." Article I, Section 3. And, "...that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V. Yet, when Congress assembled on 5 December 1865, the 25 northern members of the House and Senate voted to deny the 11 Southern States their rightful seats. This removed 22 Senators and 58 Representatives but it still left a quorum so that by parliamentarian rules, they could still conduct business. This required only a simple majority vote. (Article I, Section 5). Never mind that these same Southern States had already taken part in ratifying the 13th Amendment, which would be declared ratified the next day, 6 December 1865.

But now the Amendment would have to be ratified by a 3/4ths majority vote of the several States, which in this case meant 28 of 37 States. So between 27 October 1866 and 24 March 1868, 15 States rejected it. Humiliated, the Radical Republicans moved to get their revenge. They passed in both Houses, over the President’s veto, the so-called "Reconstruction Acts," which declared the existing duly elected, Constitutional Southern State governments a nullity, divided the South into five military districts (can we say military occupation?), each district to be ruled by a general of the US Army with absolute authority (can we say a dictator?), that each State had to convene a sham/pretend State government and ratify the 14th and 15th Amendments in order to get back into the Union.

Can you see the naked dishonesty and hypocrisy? The position of the US government during the war years was that they did not recognize the Southern States as out of the Union but in rebellion. So now they declare the Southern States out after all. Had those 370,000 plus Federal soldiers died in vain? They fought, and died, to preserve "the Union as it was." But the Radical Republicans had something else in mind all along. And now we are stuck with an illegal, unConstitutional 14th Amendment. Several cases have been brought up against it, to get it declared a nullity, invalid, void, etc. which the SCOTUS refuses to rule on, based on the merits of the cases. They call it a moot issue, a "fait accompli."

Today, a hot button issue is illegal immigration and the depositing of so-called "anchor babies" on US soil as a way to insure the illegals can not be deported. The thinking is based on the wording of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment. It reads thusly, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." In order to properly understand just what this means, we have the words of the Framers of this illegal Amendment to draw on, from such primary sources as the Congressional Globe, which was the keeper of Congressional records for 40 years from 1833-73. Senator Jacob Howard (R. - Michigan) was one of the Framers of the 14th. He served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the 14th Amendment. He had this to say about illegal citizenship, "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." Source: (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress [1866] pg. 2890) And there are others on record who concurred with him. Therefore, the SCOTUS aught to make a ruling on the issue declaring all people born in this country of illegal aliens to be foreigners, not citizens, and are subject to deportation, no matter how long they have been here. They are illegal.

The 14th Amendment has been utilized by the SCOTUS for many years to bring about social change, which is not in the purview of the courts. Consider: in 1896, in the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, the SCOTUS ruled that racial segregation, the famous "separate but equal" phrase, was the Constitutional law of the land, based upon the 14th Amendment. However, in 1954, in the famous case of Brown versus Board of Education, the SCOTUS ruled "separate but equal," racial segregation to be unConstitutional, based on the very same unrevised 14th Amendment. How can two, opposing rulings be handed down by the SCOTUS based on the same words? Then it begs the question of which ruling is the correct one? I am sure Americans of today and Americans of 1896 would disagree on that question.

States' Rights — 

• Part 1, The Founding Principle

(August 12, 2009)

Few people realize the United States started out as a Confederacy. Beginning in March 1781, two years before the end of the Secession War with Great Britain, the United States began functioning under the Articles of Confederation (AOC) as an independent nation. Quite a gamble, given the outcome of that war, which ended in September 1783, was far from assured.

In the Preamble, they declared themselves, in this Confederacy, to be a "perpetual Union." So, from 1781 on, they functioned under the idea that this would be the only form of government that would ever exist in this newly independent nation. All their hopes and dreams for the future prosperity of themselves and their descendents rested on this "perpetual" Confederacy.

After naming this Confederacy "The United States of America", the next item on their agenda was to secure for the States the right to govern over their own domestic affairs as they saw fit. To wit, Article II. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

And it only makes sense that this would be so, since they had just expended much blood and money to extract themselves from the world’s greatest superpower of its day. These learned colonists were very aware of the dangers of central control. Sadly, it seems most folks in these United States, today, think that to be a quaint notion. Most folks, it seems, are very enthusiastic about surrendering their individual rights for security. Consider these wise words from a Massachusetts man, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" - Samuel Adams

Or this gem from a man from a Pennsylvania man: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

For various reasons, it came to pass that the Confederacy was deemed to be insufficient for the needs and wants of the fledgling nation. And so, on May of 1787, selected delegates from the several States convened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of overhauling the AOC. For the next few months, much debate took place in the convention. All of the States were charged from those who sent their respective delegates, to jealously guard their own States interests. And they did as they argued passionately over what each State, and its people, wanted and expected from this new government-to-be.

To be fair, there were a lot of people who saw no problem with how things were. Even today, there are learned people who maintain that given more time, the kinks of the AOC would have settled themselves.

And as raucous as the debates had been in the Convention, they were just getting started in the States. Consider the words by Sam Nason of Massachusetts who voted against ratification: "Can it be supposed that a Constitution so pregnant with danger could come from the hands of those who framed it? Indeed, sir, I am suspicious of my own judgment, when I contemplate this idea — when I see the list of illustrious names annexed to it; but, sir, my duty to my constituents obliges me to oppose the measure they recommended, as obnoxious to their liberty and safety."

Massachusetts barely voted FOR ratification 187 to 168. Additionally, the ratifying convention in Massachusetts carried with it a set of resolutions, recommendations for the Congress to consider, if when they convened again. For my purposes, I am staying on the States Rights theme. Consider that this was at the top of their list:

Next, consider what Maryland drafted and sent: 1. That Congress shall exercise no power but what is expressly delegated by this Constitution. 21 April 1788. But North Carolina rejected the Constitution soundly 184 to 84. They also had some recommendations. Think about these: "1. That each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the federal government." And these declaration of rights: "2. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them." And this: "3. That government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."

Lastly South Carolina, who did vote soundly for ratification 149 to 73. And consider the words of Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY:

"The advantages of a republic are liberty, exemption from needless restrictions, equal laws, public spirit, averseness to war, frugality, above all, the opportunities afforded, to men of every description, of producing their abilities and counsels to public observation, and the exciting to the service of the commonwealth the faculties of its best citizens.

Woefully, today we have not men of wise council. Instead, we have partisan politics of the worst sort. We have long had men who sold their States to the fedgov, as Sam Adams and Ben Franklin spoke about. All of the Amendments to the Constitution, after the 13th Amendment, are lasting examples of what our Founding Fathers tried to warn us about. "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

"Danger lies not in some speaker’s ideas. Danger lies in teaching students that ideas they don’t agree with are not important."
— T.K. Wetherell, President of Florida State.

• Part 2, Early Uses of 

(August 26, 2009)

In the early years of the late republic, the States better understood the function of the Constitution, the relationship between the "common government," as it sometimes was referred to, far better than do the present States. The brave souls who survived the revolution lived on to put the new form of government into action. And, definitely, they were not all of one mind as to how this was supposed to work. But most of them did know this. They were not about to let the federal government dictate to them about their own domestic policies. And, if they believed new federal legislation would be injurious to their welfare and happiness, they would make loud noises about it.

New England was the first to test the viability of the new government in 1804 because of the Louisiana Purchase. There were two major issues they brought up. One, the Constitution had no provision for acquiring new territory and two, and much more importantly, New England stood to lose a lot of money through commerce and the clout that comes with prosperity. The Southern States were agrarian and were setting their eyes on all that new land. New England was about mercantilism and the maritime industries: shipping, fishing, etc. Additionally, its leading men of the day met to discuss secession, Federalists Timothy Pickering, Uriah Tracy, and Roger Griswold. They had a vision of "a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the South." The ambitious Aaron Burr was all for this. He wanted to be the head of the nation, any nation it seems, in the worst way.

New England exercised States’ Rights again in 1808, after Thomas Jefferson declared an embargo on exporting goods to any foreign port in the world. When a federal district court ruled, in the case of United States v. The William, the embargo to be Constitutional, the Massachusetts legislature begged to differ. Both houses declared the embargo acts to be "in many particulars, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional." "While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the State government," they said. The embargo, furthermore, was "not legally binding on the citizens of this State." Giving his assent to the actions of Massachusetts, a Connecticut Congressman said, "If any State Legislature had believed the Act to be unConstitutional (sic), would it not have been their duty not to comply?" The General Assembly furthermore declared: "Resolved, that to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the embargo." So, as can be seen here, Massachusetts was one of the first States to put into practice the Constitutional rights of the 9th and 10th Amendments and nullify federal law.

It was during the War of 1812 when secession fever reached its highest pitch in New England. Even though they had fought a war to be free of British control, New England had always been sympathetic towards them because much of their heritage, customs and ancestry came from there. Upon reading Madison’s war speech, Governor Caleb Strong of Massachusetts called a fast to protest a war "against the nation from which we are descended, and which for many generations has been the bulwark of the religion we profess." As a consequence of this war, States were called upon to call out their respective militias for the purpose of defending the coast. The call derived from the federal government’s authority to call the state militias into service "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions." Massachusetts and Connecticut were not going to abide this. Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong maintained that the states reserved the power to determine whether any of these three conditions held. At Strong’s request, the Massachusetts Supreme Court offered its opinion. To wit: "As this power is not delegated to the United States by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, it is reserved to the states, respectively; and from the nature of the power, it must be exercised by those with whom the states have respectively entrusted the chief command of the militia."

Finally, in late 1814, the New England States held a convention in Hartford, Connecticut for the purpose of secession. Exhilaration was in the air. People were excited at the prospect of forming a new Confederacy. But, can the central government constitutionally use military force to coerce a non-complying State against its will? Alexander Hamilton said absolutely not. He said, "by the very nature of the Constitution, it could not coerce a sovereign political society that refused to comply."

In the end, the leaders of the Hartford Convention decided not to propose secession but instead nullified certain acts of the central government, and sent commissioners to Washington to propose constitutional amendments.

This installment of "As I See It..." has drawn heavily from the works of Thomas Woods, Ph.D., Columbia University and New York Times best-selling author, and Donald W. Livingston, Ph.D, Washington University, and Professor at Emory University's Dept. of Philosophy.

• Part 3 (last of States' Right series) — 

Modern Application

(September 9, 2009)

So far, we have seen how, in the early years of our republic, it was the New England States who led the way in asserting the right of the State to keep federal usurpation in check and nullify federal legislation deemed harmful to the State. They made it clear during their ratification of the Constitution and when it became operational.

This was the precedence the Southern States drew from in 1860-61 when they believed the federal government was preparing to violate the Constitution, specifically the 9th and 10 Amendments. Two quotes from the Governors of Florida and Alabama, respectively, in November 1860 reflect the political philosophy of the times: "What is that Government? It is but the trustee, the common agent of all the States, appointed by them to manage their affairs according to a written constitution or power of attorney. Should the sovereign States, then — the principals and the partners in the association — for a moment tolerate the idea that their action must be graduated by the will of their agents? The idea is preposterous." M.S. Perry

"She is a Sovereign State, and retains every right and power not delegated to the Federal Government in the written Constitution. That Government has no powers, except such as are delegated in the Constitution, or such as are necessary to carry these powers into execution. The Federal Government was established for the protection, and not for destruction or injury of Constitutional rights. A Sovereign State has a right to judge of the wrongs or injuries that may be done her, and to determine upon the mode and measures of redress." A.B. Moore

And as we now know, the U.S. federal government did indeed force the Southern States back into the fold and, therefore, turned the Constitution upside down. The agent now tries to force the client to do the will of the agent.

There are many issues this writer believes the federal government has no place in, under the Constitution. Ever since the subjugation of State sovereignty, the federal government has been gradually usurping its Constitutional authority. They became their own judge of what it can and can not do. For example, under Article I, Section 8, paragraph 5, only Congress has the power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, ...". Yet without even the cover of amending the Constitution, they delegated that authority to a private institution, the Federal Reserve, in 1913.

One of the more controversial issues of this time is same sex unions and/or marriage. This is an issue which solidly belongs within the purview of the several States. As the Founding Fathers could, nor would, never have foreseen this becoming an issue, there is no Constitutional allowance for the federal government to act on this. Therefore, the 9th and 10th Amendments come into play.

However, the right of gun ownership IS a Constitutional issue as per the 2nd Amendment and is not reserved for the States.

Illegal immigration is another current hot topic. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and Article IV, Section 4, "...and shall protect each of them from Invasion;" places immigration within the federal sphere. But since it seems the federal government has seen fit to abdicate its Constitutional obligation and duty, it falls on the States to exercise its duty to their respective citizens, to protect them from this invasion of illegal immigrants.

THE HOT topic of the day is national healthcare, socialized medicine. No where is it provided for in the Constitution. It would be one thing if the several States tried to pass the legislation to fit their own respective needs. But not at the federal level. As the controversy on this continues to rage, this writer sees two means by which to remedy the situation. One is to amend the Constitution so as to allow for national healthcare. The second is, for those States who oppose this, to opt out of submitting to what they see as onerous. Nullify the act within their State. And to stand tall against the sure to come efforts of the federal government to force compliance by withholding federal monies, which belong to the people of the States to begin with.

And for those States who are in favor, fine. Let them be. It should be their right to allow what seems right in their eyes. But that should not be forced on those States that disagree.

• Duty to Criticize the President

January 27, 2010

Being an American patriot used to be an easily defined phrase, I think. But more and more, it is not so, I think. During the Bush II years, lots and lots of people proclaimed anyone who opposed his policies were unpatriotic, un-American, no doubt about it. But nowadays, anyone who opposes Barack Obama (BO), are the ones who are the patriots. This writer has never been one of those who blindly followed the President, regardless of who he was. He was anxious about Bush II’s declaration of war on Iraq, very agitated about his Patriot Act, totally opposed to his bailout of the banks and Detroit - among other things.

With BO, this writer is no different. Except the policies of BO, as President, are almost all diametrically opposed to the basic, fundamental philosophy so cherished by the writer. Some folks reading this may be old enough to remember several auto makers no longer around doing business because they failed and were allowed to. That is as it should be. The United States was not set up and established as the United Socialist States of America. When Nikita Khrushchev said "We will bury you", his wording was wrong but his intent was Communism would win. A moderate amount of research of Communism on the Internet will show many of the basic tenets of Communism are already well established in the "land of capitalism". A partial list of these tenets will show what this writer is writing about: Destroy Religion by distorting religion, destroy morals, destroy family life with State control of children and against discipline, establish a heavy progressive or graduated Income Tax and a central bank, disarm the people, form armed homeland defense units and police to control the people, and so on.

To this writer, BO’s domestic policies smack so much of communism that it cries out to patriotic Americans to oppose them. As President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in the Kansas City Star on 7 May 1918, "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

• Partisan Politics

October 8, 2008

Does anyone realize that there will be thirteen candidates for President listed on the Florida ballot? Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning has certified 13 candidates. Why, then, is it that the Main Stream Media (MSM) constantly ignores them? Is there some sort of conspiracy to deny to the American people the right of choice? How can we pick and choose who we think should be our elected officials if we do not know about them? Does the MSM think We The People are so stupid and lazy that we will accept whatever they put before us? Or is it true and we are but one election away from a dictator?

In the past two general elections, I did not cast my vote for either of the two major party candidates (MPC). I believed that neither of them were worthy of my confidence. And to me, earning my confidence is no small matter. Still, I have had people tell me that I wasted my vote, that only one of the two MPC had a chance of winning. But to me, that choice was a choice of the lesser of two evils. But folks, that is still choosing to vote for evil. Why should my vote be reduced to such a choice?! There are other options, you know. Thirteen of them will be on the Florida ballot. But you know why none of them will receive enough votes to be a factor, right?! Partisan politics.

Partisan politics is truly the path to ruin. At least in this day and time. Time was when the major political parties were mostly interested in the good for the nation, not party. To be sure, there has always been petty concerns, for after all, parties still consist of human beings with all their strengths and weaknesses, the high road and the low road. President George Washington, in his Farewell Address on 17 September 1796, warned us about partisan politics, though not in plain language which we would easily understand today. To wit:

Which brings us to, us. How many people relinquish their duty to vote for the best candidate by voting a party ticket? Are we really so lazy, so disingenuous so unwilling to study the candidates and issues that we give over our authority to partisan politics? As though we have no real interest in the activities of our government? If this has been the way of some, or the many, it is to the ruin of our nation. This is what we must turn from, consider all the candidates and, someday, WE THE PEOPLE ought to throw a wrench in the works, express our deep, abiding dissatisfaction with the status quo by electing a third party candidate for President, vote out all the incumbents, truly take back the nation for WE THE PEOPLE.

Lastly, read the words from the 1838 Florida Constitution, ARTICLE I, Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient. (Emphasis mine)

• Human Nature and the Elections Office

Sept. 24, 2008

All the recent gaffes at the Elections office, the exposés of corruption in local county and city government has made it necessary for legislation and ordinances to be enacted to attempt to restore public faith in their government. I view these attempts as temporary and futile because the effects will not last.

For there to be any meaningful, long lasting reform in governmental integrity, there needs to be a fundamental change in how government is viewed by the average citizen. And, this must begin at birth and how the child is raised.

By whatever name He is called, when man rejects God as his final judge, he inevitably succumbs to his base nature. Man without God is lost. Hence, if he aspires to elected office, he begins to view government, not for any high-minded purposes, not for any noble-minded ideals, not to improve the lot of his fellow man, not as a way to serve the public, but as a way to enrich himself.

By trying to control and regulate human nature through government legislation and ordinance, man is once again showing how ultimately futile his attempts are. Prostitution is probably the oldest example of government attempts to control human nature. In spite of this, it continues and thrives.

Until people recognize their folly in abandoning God, again by whatever name He is called, corruption will continue. Until we return to the faith and ways of our fathers, faith in government will continue its downward spiral.

The Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections office has embarrassed us yet again. This time, they have shown to be lacking in the one most basic, yet the most important, aspect of every election - counting ballots. Incredibly, they lost ballots in a local judge’s election. During the campaign season of the previous election four years ago for the Elections Supervisor’s office, the battle cry was "a paper trail!".

So, at the urging of a local favorite son Congressional Representative, the Elections Office received a new Supervisor, who promised this much demanded "paper trail." So, now when he finally delivered on his promise, they lose track of thousands of ballots.

To try and combat this incompetence, one of the County Commissioners has suggested the office be turned into an appointed position. To do this is to expose Palm Beach County to the same sort of debacle we experienced with the hiring of Joan Kowal. Does anyone remember her? The School Board fired Monica Ulhorn, bought out her contract, and started advertising for a replacement. They stated what their financial compensations were and resumés from all over the country started pouring in, finally settling on Joan Kowal. Then Mrs. Kowal started with her list of new demands for additional financial compensations and benefits. After a few contentious years, she, too, was fired and her contract bought out. The last I heard, she was spreading her brand of misery over on the west coast of the U.S. with that school board buying out her contract.

Is this the sort of potential problem the county government wishes to impose on us? It would be one thing if they would buy out a contract gone sour with their own personal money. But, when they do this with my money, taxpayer money, then they need to re-examine their position.

I have a suggestion. Why not lower the filing fee for the office, which is $5,377.40 dollars to something like $1,200 dollars and require the candidates have experience with elections. The salary of the Supervisor of Elections is $134,435.00 per year. Such an arrangement ought to attract a number of qualified individuals. Lowering the filing fee ought to attract those who work in Elections office. We require that those running for judge to be lawyers. Why not tack on a requirement for the Supervisor of Elections Office?

• Presidential Duty 

Sept. 10, 2008

Article II, Section 1, paragraph 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains the oath of office all Presidents have sworn before God and the whole country, to wit, "I,________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

There it is. This is what the President promises to do. Just two things. To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and faithfully execute the office. And those duties and responsibilities are all found in Article II, Section’s 1 & 2. So, with this in mind, the only question which should be presented to both of the major party presidential candidates is this, "With all that you promise to do, with all of your programs you say will help this country, your whole political platform - please tell us how does it pass Constitutional muster?" It is known that the Constitution has not been fully adhered to for more than one hundred and forty-five years now. This still is not an excuse to refuse to consider this line of reasoning. Every Presidential candidate’s platform should follow the Constitution. 

The simple equation is this - if it is not found in the Constitution, the federal government can not do it. This would be where the 9th and 10th Amendments come in. According to the Constitution, the several States CAN do what the Federal government can not. Amendment X - " 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." (emphasis mine) 

So, there it is. We must make our presidential candidates accountable to the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended so that some concepts, such as universal health care, have the cover of law, but this is not in the Presidential purview. Article V.

• Disclosure in Government

Aug. 13, 2008

There has been corruption in government ever since man first organized the very first one. Someone needs a favor, and because he knows someone and this someone is slipped some money or agrees to exchange favors, hence we have corruption.

Originally, our system of government set up safeguards so that there was fundamental honesty, integrity, dignity in government. But, especially since the Lincoln government at the federal level, corruption has been rampant. U.S. Grant, who was inaugurated President just four years after the War Between The States, presided over one of THE most corrupt administrations in U.S. history. As this writer understands, Grant himself was not the corrupt one, but was extremely naïve/gullible and trusted all the wrong people. Nevertheless, corruption had already been given a foothold in Washington by the two previous administrations.

By contrast, Jabez Curry, who had been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Alabama before the war, was back in Washington in the autumn of 1865 to visit old friends. He recounted a conversation he had with Elihu Washburne, a Representative from Illinois and who also served as Secretary of State for 12 days in 1869.

Washburne had commented that his friend’s side had given them a lot of trouble during the past four years and many in Congress had missed them. The former representative remarked that was mighty high sounding, given the past four years. The northern friend said yes that was true but the fact was that they (meaning the Southern delegation) never stole. Even James G. Blaine, hardly a Southern sympathizer, commented in his two volume book Twenty Years In Congress that "the Southern leaders … throughout their long period of domination guarded the treasury with rigid and increasing vigilance against every attempt at extravagance and every form of corruption."

So now, corruption in all government has become an almost expected function. Why else has government developed walls and barriers between us, the private citizens, and them, the governmental officials, whether elected or appointed or hired? One of these I refer to is the infamous telephone menu. How many times have we, the citizen, sought to speak to someone in the city or the county or the State or the federal government, just to be intimidated by the countless menu selections in our attempt to speak to a warm bodied voice. This is just one of my pet peeves.

Not quite a year ago, in the City of West Palm Beach, our water was declared unsafe. A boil-water order was in place for nearly a month. It turns out, according to a very recent news story, that one of the city water lab technicians had alerted the water official that the water was unclean, with fecal matter floating around. In order to make it appear everything was OK, this lab tech was made to alter the official report. After being interviewed by the feds, this lab tech was subjected to an increasingly hostile working environment. Then this same lab tech was fired, even though there is a "whistle-blower law" in Florida for the protection of those who would sound the alert that something was wrong in their workplace, whether it is the water department of some governmental agency or if it is the quality of the steel beams manufactured to be placed in buildings.

Somehow, government must be disabused of the notion that they must lie to us, the citizens who are in fact their bosses. We are the ones who pay their salary. How would government react if everyone in the whole country decided not to contribute money towards their government? It is not like the government could place more than 150,000,000 people in jail. Not here in the country that touts "liberty and justice for all."

We, the American citizen, are a strong people. We CAN handle the truth and must DEMAND that government always tell us the truth. At the local level, there is no such thing as "national security" so they do not have that excuse. Neither is this true at the State level. At the federal level, that excuse, or reason, does not always hold up either. We accept at the federal level that there are times when this is true. But I think it would be so at probably only about 15-25% of the time. Remember this, my fellow Americans, we can vote them out of office. This is our trump card and it must always be held over them so that they in government know, with finality, that they serve at OUR pleasure. We are not here for them, they are there FOR US.

 By Jimmy Shirley, Jr.

Allegiance is defined by the Random House Collegiate Dictionary, Unabridged Edition Copyright 1984, as 1. "the loyalty of a citizen to his, {or her}, government or of a subject to his, {or her} sovereign and 2. "loyalty or devotion to some person, group, cause, or the like."

In recent months, this has become a hot topic amongst war veteran groups, among others. Recently, according to the 3 June 2006 edition of the Palm Beach Post, U.S. District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp ruled, in a lawsuit filed by a Palm Beach County teenager, that "the State could not force students to stand during the pledge nor could they require students to obtain parental permission" to abstain from reciting the pledge. The judge based his ruling on a couple of factors. One, portions of a 1942 Florida law and the Palm Beach County School Board policy based on the law, violated the student's 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Two, he cited precedence in a "1943 U.S. Supreme court ruling striking down a West Virginia law requiring students to salute and pledge to the flag."

It might shed some light, and smoothe over some rankled feelings, to take a look at the history of the pledge. It was the inspiration of two avowed socialists/Marxists, FRANCIS BELLAMY-1855-1931, and his cousin EDWARD BELLAMY-1850-1898. For more information about these men, for those who are internet savvy, go to the website http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge2.html.

In the early days of the pledge, God was not even part of it. Here is how it was originally worded in August of 1892, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." When the Founding Fathers established this Republic of republics, most of them had in mind a Republic of sovereign republics and, in fact, some of the writings of the Republic's early statesmen oftentimes referred to "our confederacy" when referencing the U.S.A. I suspect that these great men of the United States' early years would have never favoured any kind of national patriotism. Had they not fought a war with England to free themselves from that sort of strong central government — that arbitrarily imposes its will on its citizens?

After The War Between The States and heading into the new century, there was a new sense of nationalism. But there also was a growing sense that big government had the potential to solve the problems of mankind. To many in this country, this notion found favour and had been reinforced by the book, "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. This idealism found favour with the Bellamy cousins, inspiring cousin Edward to write the totalitarian socialist novel Looking Backward. In the book, society has become one giant socialist monopoly. Men are treated as military draftees, from the age of twenty-one until the age of forty-five, in society's industrial army. Bellamy's glorification of the military includes government assignment of all jobs. Everyone is issued ration cards which are used to draw goods from government storehouses. By force of government, no one may have any more than anyone else. The entire education system is only a government-school system and it creates the industrial army and the entire socialist monopoly system. Edward Bellamy portrayed it as Utopia.

In his original articles concerning the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy promoted government schools and sniped at the many better alternatives, and urged that education should come only from government. Such are the minds that gave us the "Pledge".

But, there is more. Originally, the "Pledge" was recited with the right arm straight out and stiff, more reminiscent of the "Nazi salute". It was because of this "salute" that the Supreme Court made its 1943 ruling in the West Virginia case. Pictures of this may be seen at the previously mentioned website.

And, to gain a better perspective about this, consider the words of President Theodore Roosevelt when he said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

And, "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-- Theodore Roosevelt - "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

Now that you have read "the REST of the story", you may better understand that patriotism and pledging allegiance is not defined by blind loyalty. If the individual feels moved to always recite the "Pledge" whenever called to do so, then it is right for him, or her. And, when someone feels strong enough about it not to do so, the act can not be misunderstood for disloyalty to the country. The blood shed to purchase today's brand of American freedom also purchased the right to dissent, a most inviolate trust. Where would we be today without the dissent of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, et al when they dissented with the British government?

By Jimmy L. Shirley, Jr.

The Electoral College (EC) comes under scrutiny from time to time, as it should. It is within the purview of the American people to examine the very essence of the form of government we live with. The USA of 2004 bears little resemblance to the USA of 1800 — geographically, politically, ethnically. The overwhelming majority of Americans today would find living in 1800 extremely difficult, maybe even bizarre. They would be astonished to find out that they really did not elect the President of the USA.

Electors were chosen from the several states to convene in their respective states to choose a President. It was thought this arrangement would prevent deal making, corruption or foreign influence. The person who had the most votes, provided that they had at least one more than half of the total, became the President; the second most votes was the Vice-President.

Back in that day, men did not campaign for the office because it was considered unseemly, undignified, dishonorable.

Andrew Jackson changed that. Angry for losing the 1824 election, he tried again in 1828, taking his case to the people, holding parades and rallies to encourage the voters to vote for him. It worked and presidential campaigns were forever changed. The 1824 election was the first time a candidate won the election without the greatest popular vote. Because no one received the necessary majority to become president, according to the 12th Amendment, the election fell upon the House of Representatives who narrowly selected John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, the second president. This was the first father and son presidential team. It was also the last presidential election that was decided in the US House of Representatives as provided for in the 12th Amendment.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, instead of a direct, popular vote, was that they feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Thus, did Alexander Hamilton write in the Federalist Papers:

Also, it was meant to be a concession of extra power to the smaller states. Obviously, the smaller states (those that have the smallest number of electoral votes), such as Vermont (3), Delaware (3), Rhode Island (4), New Hampshire (4), would be left out of the loop if there were no equalizer. Consider this, the state of Wyoming cast about 240,500 votes, and thus each elector represented 80,160 votes, while in California approximately 9,830,550 votes were cast for 55 electoral votes, thus representing 178,737 votes per electorate. Obviously, this creates a counter-balance to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more than those people living in medium and large states.

It encourages people to vote in those states where the law is winner take all. It does not matter if a candidate wins by 50.1% or by 80%. So, when a race is very close, this is where minority votes become important in direct contrast to their population percentage. It compels candidates to appeal to all voters, where they might not ordinarily do so. In Florida, President Bush won by 376,923 votes, or, by 5 percentage points. Florida has 7,241 precincts in which to vote. If 53 more people per precinct had voted for Kerry, he would have had Fla.'s 27 electoral votes, and the election. But, then he would be President without carrying the popular national vote, if everything else had been the same.

So, if one is for or against the Electoral College really depends on if the favorite candidate won or not. The Electoral College stands as a guard between 'mob rule', which is a democracy, and, representative democracy, which is a republic. The United States of America was established, by our Founding Fathers, as a republic, and for good reason. Before we go tampering with the Electoral College, we must first define ourselves as a nation of the new millennium. Are we satisfied with representative democracy (republic), or do we want mob rule (democracy)? Or, are we ready to go the way of ancient Rome? Rome went from being a republic to an empire — from representative rule to being ruled by Caesar. The people handed over its responsibilities as Roman citizens to the ruling elite, in exchange for the welfare state. And eventually, Rome fell, and, as history shows, all empires do.

On 4 July 1776, the representatives of the 13 British colonies, then in rebellion against the British government, made a truly revolutionary statement in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,..." In history, it had always been held that any "rights" one may have had always been dispensed, or taken away, at the pleasure of whoever was the ruler, king, emperor, etc. That we had "God-given rights" was truly a revolution in thought.

"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"...

There are four other issues covered in the 1st Amendment after this wording. This focus is on religion and how it pertains to Americans and their expression of their religious beliefs on public property.

The Founding Fathers knew very well from history how 'State Religions' had wreaked havoc, waged wars, suppressed scientific research, and killed people — all in the 'name of God'. And they were determined that that would not happen here.

As to how the 1st Amendment addresses the issue of religion and government, the first sentence is a direct quote. From this quote, the United States Supreme Court ruled many years ago that it means 'a wall of separation between church and State', based on a letter by President Jefferson written 1 January 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The Supreme Court disregarded 145 years of tradition when it ruled, in 1947:

It seems to this writer that 'Congress shall make no law...' was overlooked. In the early years of the Republic, it was understood that the 10th Amendment held sway, i.e. '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.' In other words, in this writer's opinion, whatever the Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to do, it cannot, on its own authority, do. Notice that here the word State is capitalized. The framers did that on purpose to show where the importance was. Therefore, it was understood by the framers of the Constitution that religion fell under the purview of the States, not the 'Common Government', as the Federal Government use to be referred to, or the Congress, as in Congress shall make no law. These first ten Amendments, or the Bill of Rights, were always meant to limit the power of the Federal Government, not the States.

For years and years, Manger scenes, around Christmas time, were placed on court house squares, public right of ways, public parks, etc. because the religion of most Americans was Christianity. Again, it was understood that this fell under the purview of the several States. In the meantime, Congress had made no law. It was one thing if the States made a law. It was a whole 'nother matter if Congress did. And it had not.

Since the late 1940s the trend has been toward 'freedom from religion', not the free exercise thereof, on public places. This seems, to this writer, to be a wrong headed approach. The two major religions in this country are Christianity and Judaism. The way I see it, there is room enough in this country for all of us to celebrate our religious beliefs, respectfully. I respect yours and you respect mine. And we respect theirs. All on public grounds, the courthouse square.

Just so the readers know, "separation of church and State" is not to be found in the Constitution, nor is there a federal law to that effect. It is in the wording of the U.S. Supreme court rulings. One might note, though, that the 10 Commandments are carved in stone on the Supreme Court building. As it should be, those being the basis of all law in the Western civilizations.