<Grin>! You're on a roll MJ!
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Usually it is the absurdity that is Wickard v. Filburn > THAT is one of the problems ... what passes for legal training is studying > 'pass-the-buck' precedents. > More eloquently (perhaps): *One of the chief obstacles to the recovery of > the actual Constitution from the judges and their sycophants is the type of > "education" to which fledgling lawyers have been subjected in law school. > In general, they have read a heap of judicial opinions, most of them based > on nothing more than the judges’ personal political preferences. They are > taught to respect, even revere, these judicial products as if they were the > Constitution itself -- although in fact they are in many ways the > Constitution’s perfect opposite. **Alongside the case method of > instruction as an obstacle to any attempt to reclaim authentically > constitutional government in the United States is the tendency to worship a > few early American politicians. In the hands of the West Coast Straussians, > this Founders worship distorts the truth about the establishment of the > current federal government so very greatly.* Regard$, > --MJ > > "The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of > consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution > that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim > no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, > then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must > be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could > impose their own preferences on the public instead." -- Tom Woods > > > > At 09:50 PM 7/15/2013, you wrote: > > I can't remember the case, but it was while I was in law school, the most > ridiculous case that I can recall regarding Congress' grab of, and abuse of > the Commerce Clause; as well as the asinine Court's blessing of such a > power grab. It regarded a manufacturer of clothing, I think they were > jeans, but I don't remember now. Because the jeans utilized a zipper that > was made in a different State, the Supreme's in their infinite wisdom > ruled that the Court in question had jurisdiction because the manufacturer > had imported less than a hundred zippers from one state to another. > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:58 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: AIS8C3 [The > Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and > among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Samuel Johnson 1750 > dictionary To RE'GULATE.v.a. [regula, Lat.] 1. To adjust by rule or > method. Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to > partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the > models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need > some better explication. Locke. 2. To direct. Regulate the patient > in his manner of living. Wiseman. Ev’n goddesses are women; and no > wife Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life. Dryden. . CO'MMERCE.n.s. > [commercium, Latin. It was anciently accented on the last syllable.] > Intercourse; > exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; > traffick. The word "commerce" was almost never used in common parlance in > the colonies or newly independent states. A search of newspapers, speeches, > and letters of that time and place finds few instances of it. The word is > originally French, and we have this from Emmerich de Vattel, in his Law of > Nations (1758), Book I § 92: ... commerce consists in mutually buying and > selling all sorts of commodities. Vattel was well-known and often cited > by the Founders. > > Note the PARTIES involved -- States, foreign Nations and Indian Tribes. > What has this to do with 'any "thing" or entity that can or will affect > interstate commerce'. It simply doesn't. It is ABSURD. > Regard$, --MJ > To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with > the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very > different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its > bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the > mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a > thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for > buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of > regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal > commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to > Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of > the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen > and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its > external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or > with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does > not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of > considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by > any other of the special enumerations. -- Thomas Jefferson > > > At 02:50 PM 7/15/2013, you wrote: > > Michael, in a sense, I agree with you. As an example, how does the > Federal Government have jurisdiction over the criminalization of drugs, > which is codified in Title 21 of the United States Code, and not at all in > the U.S. Criminal Code; Title 18. The same goes for pollution standards, > in Title 33. In another sense, I understand the logic, because as you > well know, the Congress' jurisdicition extends over any "thing" or entity > that can or will affect interstate commerce. Finally, whether we agree, > or disagree, whether we like it or we don't like it, that is the law of > the land. > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:44 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: But > the US Constitution lists ... piracy, counterfeiting, treason, violation of > laws of nations ... and no other crimes whatsoever ... Besides, the > dubiously ratified 14th from which all these 'civil rights' are derived ... > applies to STATES. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall > abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor > shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without > due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the > equal protection of the laws." What Law did Zimmerman 'put into effect'? > Regard$, > --MJ "In our country the lie has become not just a moral category but a > pillar of the State" -- the great Soviet dissident and literary figure, > Alexander Solzhenitsyn in December 1974. > > > > At 02:33 PM 7/15/2013, you wrote: > > It has been long ago decided that there is nothing afoul of the double > jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment, if in fact the State or other > municipality chooses to prosecute an individual, and the Federal government > also chooses to prosecute. The theory of "Dual Sovereignty" "The > Constitutional Right not to be placed in double jeopardy, being a vital > safeguard in American society, should not be given a narrow, grudging > application". See Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184; 2 L.Ed.2d 199, > (1961); (c.f.; See Also Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 131-133; 3 > L.Ed.2d 684 (1959); a defendant prosecuted by two sovereign governments > for the same conduct may on occasion be able to invoke double jeopardy > protection.) On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, MJ <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Holder was all full of vim and vigor, talking about how the > U.S.D.O.J. was on the job, looking at and reviewing what could be done in > the legal arena to continue the prosecution of Zimmerman. > > > > Continue? Wasn't he declared 'not guilty' by a jury of strangers? What is > to continue -- specifically? Regard$, --MJ "Show me that age and country > where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance > of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?" -- > Patrick Henry, Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying > Convention (5 June 1788). > > -- > -- > 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. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- 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. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
