What revisionist history.....When I am not rushed for time, I will attempt to respond in more detail, but Jim Davies has so mis-stated the truth in this article, it is laugable.
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > OOPS!!!! Right off the bat the stated premise is FALSE !!! There was, in > 1789, already a legal, sitting US Government: > > “DONE at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennfylvania, the 9th day of July, > in the Year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of > America.” > > .”The aforefaid articles of confederation were finally ratified on the > first day of March 1781; the state of Maryland having, by their Members in > Congress, on that day acceded thereto, and completed the fame. > > The constitution REQUIRED as noted below a unanimous vote of the several > States to ratify ANY change to said Constitution known as the “Articles of > Confederation .” > > . > > The loosely organized federal government created by the Articles quickly > demonstrated some glaring weaknesses. > > *The central government lacked the power to regulate trade, levy taxes, and > impose tariffs. No uniform paper currency or coinage was authorized - money > from many states and of differing values was in circulation. > > *The central government also lacked control over foreign affairs, allowing > a deplorable situation in which individual states sent envoys to foreign > states. Some states had created their own armies, others their own navies. > > *In rare instances, when the Congress could agree to enact legislation, > there was no judicial system to enforce the laws. > > A convention was called by the sitting congress after a letter from > Alexander Hamilton requesting a new convention after the previous one had > been attended by only 5 people or possibly states…I’m not sure.. > > The stated goal of the Convention — the revision of the Articles of > Confederation — was quickly discarded and attention given to more sweeping > changes. Discussion turned instead to two competing concepts of how a new > government should be formed. > > These revisions were to cover the above points (*) ONLY under permission > granted by the REAL 9th and 10th Presidents of the United States in > Congress Assembled. > > As evidenced by Washington’s letters to Lafayette and the 1840 release of > Buchanan’s notes absolute secrecy was maintained to keep the lawful, seated > government and the general populace in the dark. > > > > “ARTICLE XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United > States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation > are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be > inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor > shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless > such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be > afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” > > To make a long story short…. Your present form of government and it’s > Constitution were the very definition of a bloodless coup. > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:19 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On May 8, 6:40 pm, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > "Oops! Right off the bat, in its very first session, Congress therefore >> tried to do something it was not empowered to do (if you'll allow for the >> moment that, contrary to Spooner, the Constitution actually empowered anyone >> to do anything). In so doing, Congress demonstrated its disdain for the >> fences placed around it by Articles Two and Five. Very clearly, government >> today acknowledges no limits on its power; the 1789 Judiciary Act made it >> plain that Congress never did acknowledge such limits, even in its very >> first session."1789by Jim Davies >> > It's often said that America was once a free country, but that its >> freedom has been heavily damaged by a relentless growth in government. Some >> (like Aaron Russo in his documentaryAmerica: from Freedom to Fascism) date >> the decline from 1913, when the Federal Reserve was chartered and the Income >> Tax enacted; but I no longer think it began that late. The "Pristine State" >> advocates suppose that there was once in our history a kind of Eden from >> which we have fallen, and so that all we need now is somehow to get back >> there – to "constitutional rule." There wasn't, and we don't. I think our >> troubles began no later than 1789. >> > The drafting was done in 1787, and the needed nine States had ratified >> it by June 21st, 1788, so the Constitution became supreme law on that day. >> Then on March 3rd 1789 Congress opened its doors and the following month >> George Washington presided. It's very interesting to notice what the new >> Congress did, in its first session, from March through September of that >> year. >> > It committedsix acts, before going home for the winter in September. See >> if any of them give you warm, fuzzy feelings; and in a moment I'll focus on >> the sixth, because of its huge importance. >> > First came some administration; deciding on how oaths of office were to >> be taken. Not too much there to bother us. >> > Second was the "Hamilton Tariff," under which revenue was to be raised. >> So the second-ever Act of the US Congress was to arrange for the >> confiscation of property. Sure, it was Constitutional – it was a set of >> tariffs, imposed on certain imports; some must have recalled that it was a >> tariff on tea that had sparked the Revolution in the first place, so may >> have wondered whether anything had changed except the geographic location of >> the thieves. The import duties favored Northern manufacturers by making >> foreign goods seem more expensive – it was protectionist – and hurt >> Southerners by making them pay more. From Day One, a division was being >> fashioned that led after seventy years to open warfare. So the first >> substantive thing Congress did was to start to set the scene for internal >> conflict. >> > Third came an establishment of "Foreign Affairs" – now the Department of >> State – by which the new government was to execute "policies" towards other >> nations. If the intention was to have a perfectly uniform policy towards >> all, that would not have been needed. By establishing one, it was clear >> there were to be some nations more favored, others less favored. That's what >> a "foreign policy" means, and it is ultimately the cause of war and, in our >> own era, of the unconventional war called "terrorism"; for had there been no >> foreign policy favoring Israel (recall Biden's call in March for "no space" >> between the policies of the US and Israel?) there would have been no 9/11, >> or if there had been one favoring Palestinians there would have been a >> "9/11" much sooner and much more devastating, executed by Mossad. So the >> third Act in the history of the new government was to set the scene for all >> future external conflict. >> > Fourth was an Act to set up a Department of War – now euphemized as >> "Defense" – and that was very logical. You play favorites with other >> nations, eventually you'll need to fight some of them. Better get ready. >> > Fifth came the Department of the Treasury, to take in and account for >> the collection and spending of the money confiscated by Act Two. It is to >> this Department that today's IRS belongs, so I need say no more. >> > So far, it's not too hard to detect the beginnings of all the most >> loathsome attributes of any government: tax, distortion, discord and >> warfare. This is to what our well-meaning "Constitutionalist" friends want >> to get us back. >> > The sixth action of that first session bore fruit on September 24th, >> 1789 and was the "Judiciary Act" – and it's notorious and breathtaking. >> Here's why. >> > On its face, its purpose was just to flesh out Article Three, which said >> there was to be a Judicial Branch in the new government. It had to do with >> establishing Courts – Supreme, District, Circuit – and government Attorneys, >> General and less general. But as well as that administrative stuff, the 1789 >> Judiciary Act declared that the Supreme Court had the power to hear actions >> for "writs of mandamus" as one oforiginal jurisdiction,and so not to be just >> a court of appeal. Congress was therefore purporting to grant to its sister >> Branch a power which Article Three never gave it. >> > Oops! Right off the bat, in its very first session, Congress therefore >> tried to do something it was not empowered to do (if you'll allow for the >> moment that, contrary to Spooner, the Constitution actually empowered anyone >> to do anything). In so doing, Congress demonstrated its disdain for the >> fences placed around it by Articles Two and Five. Very clearly, government >> today acknowledges no limits on its power; the 1789 Judiciary Act made it >> plain that Congress never did acknowledge such limits, even in its very >> first session. >> > Was this arrogation of power deliberate, or inadvertent? >> > Either is possible if the Act is considered in isolation, but it wasn't >> isolated. While the Constitution was being drafted, Alexander Hamilton and >> other Federalists had wanted to specify powers for the Judicial Branch, just >> as the charter did for the other two Branches, and in particular to grant it >> the power of "Judicial Review," i.e., to say what is, and is not, valid law. >> He argued that that is what high courts normally do. However in Article >> Three no powers were granted to it at all, so as it's fair to presume that >> it was not to have zero powers (otherwise, why set it up?) consequently >> Article Three left them wide open – for unlike the wording of Articles I and >> II there are no limits or prohibitions named, either. It was a blank check, >> whose detail could be filled in later. >> > If Hamilton had had his way and the Constitution as drafted had said >> something like "The Supreme Court shall have power to decide what is law and >> what is not law" the new government would have been plainly seen as a >> dictatorship, and in my humble opinion it would have not had a snowball's >> chance of getting ratified; even as it was, that process was no sure thing. >> So that's why they left it blank – while the Federalist majority intended >> all along that such a power should, indeed, be owned by the Judicial Branch >> so that the new government could (with a little delay, and with its >> cooperation) do anything it wanted to do, while operating under the pretense >> of being strictly limited. >> > So Congress' 1789 attempt to endow the Supreme Court with a new power >> (to hear certain cases with original jurisdiction) was not accidental, but >> deliberate; that particular power wasn't very important, but it was to test >> the waters, establish a precedent. If they could grant it one small power >> then, they could later grant it bigger ones, and so eventually equip it with >> absolute, law-determining power. Take an inch at once, so as to take a mile >> later on. >> > Success came soon: Jefferson won the 1802 election and in the changeover >> from Adams' administration a certain judge, William Marbury, was not given >> his proper paperwork to take up an appointment in D.C. So he took advantage >> of the Judiciary Act, and filedwith the Supreme Courta suit for a "writ of >> mandamus" – to handle that matter at once – against the new Secretary of >> State, Madison. >> > John Marshall's Supreme Court delivered awell-reasoned opinion, which >> confirmed that Marbury was properly entitled to his new job, but that the >> Supreme Court was not legally entitled to issue the requested writ. Marshall >> wrote that the Congress had no power to endow the Court with the right to >> hear such petitions as one of original jurisdiction, for by so doing it >> would have amended the Constitution, contrary to Article V. He was right; >> the 1789 Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. So as to clarify that Congress >> was not the final arbiter of law he then went on to write the sentence now >> engraved on the wall of the Supreme Court building:IT IS EMPHATICALLY THE >> PROVINCE AND DUTY OF >> > THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS >> > >> > Now, here's the awesome trick that was being pulled: in the very act of >> declaring that Congress was not entitled to amend the >> Constitution,Marshall's court was itself amending the Constitution! –or >> purporting to do so. Why? – because in Article Three, the Judicial Branch is >> not empowered to declare whether or not a law that Congress wrote conforms >> to the Constitution. That power of final arbitration or "judicial review" is >> simply not there. Hamilton wanted it there, and argued that it was >> implicitly there, but in fact it is not. Therefore, in issuing >> theMarburyopinion, Marshall put it there: he did for his own Branch exactly >> what the decision itself said was not allowed for another Branch. >> > Did his court have any alternative? – I don't think so, but to judge >> from the enthusiasm Marshall used in the quote above, I doubt whether that >> worried him. TheMarburydecision filled in the blank check of Article Three; >> that was how power was grabbed. Since 1803, what is and is not law has been >> determined not by "The People" or their alleged representatives in Congress, >> but by a cabal of government people who decide what's to be done and, if >> challenged, get the Judicial Branch to declare it legal. The yawning chasm >> between what courts now routinely enforce regarding income tax, for example, >> and what USC Title 26 actually says (and indeed what the Supreme Court said >> about unapportioned direct taxes, between 1896 and 1921) is thereby fully >> explained: the Judicial Department "says what the law is," really and truly >> and actually, and so it's been ever since 1803 thanks to the empty text of >> Article Three and toMarbury v Madison. >> > Was theMarburydecision itself Constitutional? – that's the nub of the >> matter. No, of course it wasn't, for the Court exercised a power it had >> never been given. Yet on the other hand it exercised a power it had never >> been denied, either, and as Hamilton persuasively argued in theThe >> Federalist #78, Judicial Review is quite customarily a normal function of >> high courts and so the power was implicit in Article Three even though not >> explicit. We can note also that even the power to decide simple cases of >> lawbreaking is not explicitly described there either, along with the >> prerequisite power to interpret what laws mean; yet those are accepted as >> normal functions of any judicial branch of government. In any case, who is >> to decide that key question? Some kind of super-supreme court? Sorry, that's >> not covered in the Constitution, not even in Article Eight. We have here >> reached the ultimate, fatal flaw in the pleasant fiction that governments >> are entities capable of being limited. >> > Ever since 1803, America's government has pretended to operate a >> limited, democratic republic but has actually been an oligopoly of lawyers. >> And since Article Three was crafted (and left blank) with all deliberate >> intent, I suggest that's the way the founders always planned it. The 1789 >> Judiciary Act was a kind of delayed-action poison pill, a really cunning >> plot, planned and executed by those honored even today as the founders of a >> free society. And this is perfectly logical; the notion that a government >> (something thatgoverns) can ever be subject to limits (things that prevent >> governing) is nonsense on its face, an absolute contradiction. >> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/davies2.1.1.html >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> > >> > * Visit our other community >> > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle H. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
