-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! Q: I have never understood this. The framers gave us three branches of government specifically because we didn’t want a king right? So they give us the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. And each one of you guys has a specific job function. A reasonable person, if such a fictional character existed, would expect that the legislature would be jealous of their territory. A: Yeah but they are not. We had a bill on the Education Committee and it was obviously unconstitutional and I brought the subject up -- and the chairman said, "Well that may be true but that’s not our responsibility." Q: Bullfeathers! Absolutely it is your responsibility! A: He says, "We’ll wait until it goes to the court and they can decide." I just threw my hands up and said "Oh my!" Q: A few years ago -- I think it was a congressman from Florida -- he introduced some legislation that made all the sense in the world. It said no one could introduce anything unless they could provide a citing from the Constitution that authorized it. I remember joking with him at the time saying it would be cool if you could make that retroactive and he said we’d have to get rid of 90% of the laws we have. A: That was John Shaddock from Arizona. Interestingly, that never got passed into law but it is a rule of the House. And the rule is "followed" -- so you go and pick up a piece of legislation. I remember one that struck my interest -- it had to do with the export-import bank. China gets five billion dollars of export subsidies. So I went and asked, "What’s the constitutional justification for this?" So they cite the coinage clause -- that they can coin money and that to them was to extend credit to communist nations. So that bill would do no good even if it were a law. The general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause -- everything has been so messed up. Q: We could do six hours on just the commerce clause. But the thing I have never understood is why congress would say, "Let the courts sort it out." The whole purpose of the three branches was so that shouldn’t have to happen. A: They don’t understand that they're supposed to interpret the Constitution just as a judge would interpret it. I think it’s their upbringing. The fact that they have not really studied constitutional law -- they have not been taught this in college and they're not interested in really paying attention. They might have some respect for what I do, but deep down inside ... Q: They marginalize you. A: Yeah they say, "This guy is really out of it." If I didn’t go home and talk to my people and get some support and get reelected, they’d have me doubting it too. I’m absolutely convinced that we who believe this way are on the right track. We are much more correct than anything that they do and there are a lot of people around the country who feel frustrated, who feel good about somebody trying to stand up for these views. Q: Recently I was just re-reading a series of magnificent rants by Congressman Louis McFadden from 1933 and I was focused on the language he was using -- and how harsh he was in his criticism of specifically the Federal Reserve -- and I can’t conceive of anyone who even attempts to give a speech like that now. I don’t know -- maybe you, Jim Traficant if the moon is in a certain phase, or Bob Barr? A: Yeah and for most of them it isn’t so much that they love the Fed -- they don’t really understand the system but they know the Fed is important. Q: We’ll return to that but I need to drag us back on point to the International Criminal Court and explain the sleazy way that Clinton approved this mess. A: The meeting in Rome drawing this treaty was a couple of years ago and it was unpopular here and nothing was done. But it was at that time when Clinton was working on all his pardons on December 31st, the last day of the year, he had this treaty signed. I’m sure he did this thinking it would quietly go by for a while without too much talking about it. Q: It could have also been a way of flipping off Congress because the treaty doesn’t go into effect until the Senate approves it and the Senate is not going to approve it. A: That’s right and yet we are still concerned about it. Because just as we don’t act within the rule of law very often, the world sort of takes upon themselves to interpret our signature being much more than we think it is. We think it should be ratified before it is the law of the land. Some of us think that, even if it is ratified, if it contradicts the Constitution it shouldn’t be the law of the land. Q: Hold on there! You’ve got a couple of so-called "agreements" that have the clout of treaties in NAFTA and GATT and you’ve been unable to do anything about those dogs. A: I know that’s a big problem and they do take that and it becomes the law of the land. They literally believe now that they can amend the Constitution through this process. So, in a way, you can do that without the House even participating. Do you recall the Bricker Amendment? Q: Sure. A: If you just listen to the Constitution, you don’t really need the Bricker Amendment. The Bricker Amendment would state very clearly you couldn’t change the Constitution. I have a Sense of Congress Resolution I’ve introduced to just at least get that discussion out and say hey what are we doing and why do we give up so much? We give up our sovereignty. We give up this power that should be in the hands of the members of Congress and now we are letting the WTO write our tax laws for us. It to me is a very serious infraction of the Constitution. Q: When Clinton signed this ICC thing on December 31st a couple of things happened. First, he signed the treaty. So the world looks at it and sees the U.S. signed the treaty. It doesn’t go into effect unless the Senate approves it -- and even this Senate -- even this Senate is not going to approve this. A: Right. But just remember how powerful the presidents are through Executive Order. If Clinton wanted to impose environmental regulations that were coming out of the Kyoto treaty -- which was not signed and was not ratified -- he could just do it through Executive Order. The Congress just sits back and doesn’t say anything. Q: I’m glad you brought that up because here’s another pet peeve. Executive Orders, although they have become the classic abuse of power under the color of authority and have been misused and misconstrued -- Congress can overturn any Executive Order -- or, for that matter, could eliminate the whole Executive Order tool. So why the hell don’t you guys do that? I mean he’s poaching on your turf. A: I have another bill for that one too trying to make this point that we should not give the president -- any president -- this power. So I have a bill that would say the only Executive Order he can issue are the ones authorized by the Constitution. Like special sessions of Congress, he’s the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military and a few things like that. But all the rest -- including all the regulations of the agencies, including the regulations of the 1,500 pages for so-called protecting our medical privacy -- all that would be thrown out the window. Q: The Executive Order tool -- the mechanism was designed as a tool for the "Executive Branch" -- as a management tool for the Executive Branch. At what point was it assumed or gifted with greater scope? I mean the classic case was with the Mexican bailout. Clinton went to Congress and asked for 60 billion bucks and you guys said, "No." And as Paul Begala said, "stroke of the pen -- law of the land … cool." Bullfeathers! A: That’s right. And, of course, to me the worst Executive Order is the key to one of the reasons why we fought our revolution: To take the power to wage war away from the king. It’s very clear in the Constitution that only Congress can declare war. Yet by Executive Order or through treaty with the U.N., we’ve been to war under U.N. resolutions -- even our current President already bombed Iraq. Where did he get his authority? U.N. resolution. Q: What happened with that War Powers Act thing you were involved in recently? A: I’ve reintroduced my legislation with the Executive Orders but I’ve separated out the War Powers Resolution because things always work differently than what they are said to do. The War Powers Resolution in the early '70s -- '72, I think -- was to stop them from fighting wars like Vietnam without declaration. Well, it turned out that actually it legitimatized fighting wars for 90 days before the president even has to talk to the Congress. It backfired. So I want to repeal the War Powers Resolution because it has not prevented war. We go to war more often than ever. Q: Do you have any traction for it from your colleagues? A: Not really. There’s no interest. Q: Excuse me, but this keeps bringing us back to a common theme. Congress seems to have surrendered the incredible power that was given to it. First off, in 1913 they gave the Fed the congressional mandate to mint and coin money. Then they gave up war powers. You let the president and now the courts make law. What do we even need you guys for? A: What else is there if they can control the money? They’ve legalized counterfeit by a secret bank -- the central bank, the Federal Reserve and then we allow our presidents to wage war either by himself or under U.N. resolution and then we write our tax laws according to what the WTO tells us. It’s serious. And I think people have been very complacent and they’re fat and happy and our prosperity has lulled them to sleep but maybe that’s coming to an end and maybe the American people will wake up and say, "How did we get ourselves into this mess?" But the big danger is there’ll be even more eager to turn over more power if there is a major crisis. Look what they do in depression and war times -- they give more power to a president. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
