Due to issues beyond our control. The posts for most of 2014 and all 2015 have been lost during a domain transfer. These will be re-posted when possible.

The Moment a Prof. Warned that America Is at a 'Constitutional Tipping P...

Congress’ unconscionable silence at president’s power grabs

I think is the first time I have used another’s article on my site, but I do think this one covers many items that are in line with the point of view of this site.

NAPOLITANO: Congress' unconscionable silence at presidential power grabs - Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Congress' unconscionable silence at presidential power grabs - Washington Times

Open discussion on the Founding. (2/9/2014)

I am a huge Hockey fan, and one of the discussion boards for my team, at times the conversation goes sideways and needs a more appropriate venue for further discussion, so Hockey can be the main topic where it should be. This post is made to be a more appropriate setting to continue this and other founding discussions.

Quick thoughts (Duck Dynasty)

This Duck Dynasty issue is NOT a Freedom of Speech issue. Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you wish without fear of prosecution or reprisal from GOVERNMENT, it does not mean you can speak without consequence. They are not in fear of persecution from Government, they were free to say what they did. The Duck Dynasty guys are employees, and just like any employee at any place of work has terms of employment and an almost universal one is when you speak in a manner for your employer, you must follow their wishes. The Duck Dynasty guy was giving an interview about life, but also the show, meaning he was acting as a voice for A&E. He must then abide by the terms the employer sets, and if they do not follow them the employment can be rightfully terminated or suspended. In order to have order in a society, these are things that must occur, you cannot have employees screaming at bosses or not doing their job expecting no consequence under the guise of freedom of speech, that is not how it works. They signed a contract as employee-employer, it was violated by the employee, pure and simple.

You most certainly do not have to agree with the Duck Dynasty Guys or A&E, but it is not a suppression of Freedom of Speech. He was able to speak as he wished and is not in fear of prosecution. It is a matter of how A&E is wishing to protect its name on the conduct of one of its employees, that is the real issue, not Freedom of Speech.

Quick Thoughts: Do not desire power you do not want your opponents to use against you

These past couple weeks, Washington has been rocked by numerous reports of potential improper use of power by the Government at the IRS targeting certain political ideologies, Department of Justice seizing records of the Press, the admittance that drone strikes have killed US Citizens without due process or were accidental and accusations of false reports to the People and Congress in regards to these and others events.

I am working on a couple of these and how they relate to the Constitution so I will not go into detail about them at this time, rather I do want to make a quick point about one other troubling aspect to me. It is those who are defending the accusations themselves as being "legitimate", not denying that they occurred. In other words it is "okay" for Government to target certain political positions it does not agree with or government sees as a threat, it is "okay" for government to seize records with out the required due process the press is safeguarded under by the First and Fourth Amendments because of "National Security". It is "okay" for Government to deceive or mislead the people to protect information, regardless if the revealing of that information has any actual effect in policy or safety.

My question to those who contend it IS "okay" for Government to do this, would you feel confortable to have the opposing side in power and use those same powers tactics or methods against those it opposes, being you? For me this is the simplest and most effective way to determine what the limit of ANY government power should be. Would you feel at ease, or under duress if those who oppose you had that power to use against you? If you cannot answer yes, then it is a power NO GOVERNMENT must ever have. If the power is available to Government, those in power may not use it today against the people or its adversaries, but history has proven someday someone will come along who will. The goal for a free people should be, to NEVER let government have that power in the first place, and when it tries to seize it, NOT defend those actions, but even if you oppose who it is being used against, speak out against those who wield it. Because if you do not, one day you will be on the other side of the table and by not speaking when it first happened, you have already condoned not only the power, but that acts to come at your expense.

What is the Constitution? What does it do and what does it not do?

The United States Constitution is a basic framework of government, primarily at the national level but also with requirements or prohibitions at the state level.

The initial premise of the Constitution is that of defining and limiting Federal Government power, that is to say if an act does not fall within the limits of the Constitution, the Federal Government does not possess that power. This is reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment

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.

The Tenth Amendment in clear and conscience terms layout the Constitution is a limiting document, the power not specifically granted to it are reserved to the two powers who created the Constitution, the States (who created it in the Convention of 1787) and the People (who ratified it causing it to go into effect on March 4, 1789).

 

The focus here will be on the Constitution as it was in 1788 chiefly. Amendments will be cited when it has changed aspects of the text or provisions of the Constitution and how it has changed those provisions, but the Amendments themselves are not a focus topic in this article.

2012 Election Poll

Who are you voting for President and Vice President?
	Barack Obama and Joe Biden (Democrat)
	Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (Republican)
	Gary Johnson and James Gray (Libertarian)
	Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins (Green)
	Another ticket not listed
	Will not Vote in the 2012 General Election
	Still not decided
pollcode.com free polls

This is a non-scientific poll to let readers here have their vote heard.

A More Powerful Government (Quick Thoughts)

This is an article I plan on diving much more deeply into in the future. In many of my discussions I have with people about the Founding Principles of the Constitution, one of the most common things I hear is something along these lines,

“The Founders wanted a strong central government because the Article of Confederation proved a weak one can’t work”.

With the exception of one word in this context, I happen to fully agree with the statement, the word “strong” instead of '”stronger”. No matter how you word it or state it, it is this concept and the difference between Strong and Stronger in this context that makes the World’s difference in the discussion. To often in my opinion, many who favor a very strong Federal Authority are the ones who use the word strong and use it with the Founder’s in this context to justify their position of a more absolute Federal power.

Voter Rights and Checks (Quick Thoughts)

For starters I have to apologize to all for not having posted anything in some time. I do hope to post more often again, life as we all know at times can get rough. But now onto the point of this post.

Much has made the news in recent months about voting rights and voter verification as many states have adopted or are enforcing Voter ID checks to the dismay of many. This is not going to be so much as a complete Constitutional analysis or opinion but rather from the perspective of Liberty and Integrity, and is something I touched base on a couple years back.

The Shot Heard round the World (Concord, MA; April 19, 1775)

237 Years ago, the American Colonist began armed resistance to the British crown, in two small towns west of Boston, Massachusetts, well over a year before the Declaration of Independence was even debated.

By April 1775, tensions between the British and Colonist in New England, Massachusetts in particular had reached the boiling point. On April 14, 1775 British General Thomas Gage received orders to disarm the rebels, and arrest the main Colonial Leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock. General Gage proceeded with plans to march on Concord, Massachusetts west of Boston where a cache of arms was believed to be stored.

On April 18, 1775 Gage sent about 20 troops into the countryside west of Boston to intercept anybody on Horseback who may be able to pass word of the impending British Forces movement to Concord. Having received word of General Gage’s order, by April 8, 1775 most of the Colonial Leaders had already left Boston, with two prominent exceptions being Paul Revere and Joseph Warren. British troops had been noticed scoping out the roads and country side by Concord, but not a larger cache site in Worcester further South West, and the townspeople of Concord decided to distribute the weapons to other near by towns.

The United States is not a Democracy

Often we hear about the United States being a “Democracy”, or let “Democracy” decide. We see it in many places; the United States Navy Sailors Creed has the term Democracy

“…to protect freedom and democracy around the world.”

But the United States is not a “True Democracy”, rather we are a democratically elected Republic, and the difference between that and democracy is significant.

Democracy vs a Republic

Democracy

Majority vote prevails. The majority of a vote on a given subject decides the course of law, generally without any predefined limits on what law can be, since the majority of the people decide what law is.

Republic

A system where members are chosen for the purpose of representing a larger body (in the US the People or the States), generally in part or in whole chosen directly by the people. That body or bodies are usually constrained by some sort of contract (Constitution) with the people normally directly voting for at least one part of the body.

Role of the Supreme Court (Quick Thoughts)

Today I was watching a news show, and the discussion was the potential retirement of Justice Ginsburg in 2015. During the commentary, one comment from a pundit really caught my attention in regards to the Supreme Court. He was discussing how the 2012 Presidential Election will have a significant impact on the Court pending the winner in the General Election in November. It was the comment at the end, not so much the philosophy or jurisprudence that struck me. He said, "One of the most important things an Executive will do is nominate to the Supreme Court", this I do not disagree with. It was the reasoning that I do, because he stated after this, "The Supreme Court decides who gets equal Rights", and then proceeded to state how one candidate should "Scare the hell" out of the people if he were to win, the latter being besides the point.

The role of the Supreme Court is NOT to decide who gets equal rights, this is already addressed in multiple places on who does.

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; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

14th Amendment

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.

Origins of the First Amendment, Freedom of Religion: Early writings to 1787 (Part 7)

As discussed in part one of the origins of the Bill of Rights British tyranny had a lot of influence on what would eventually become the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Partially out of this tyranny and partially out of philosophy. Many writings occurred in the decades, even centuries before the American Revolution that expressed opinions which are found in the First Amendment.

A sample of these will be discussed since are well too many to going to depth on all of them, but a sample across decades and centuries will be explored here into the American Revolution.

We will look at the First Amendment in four different areas, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of Association and freedom to petition. The reason for this is these can be distinctly referenced to in their specific areas though in all writings they may not be combined together.

Whose liberty comes first?(Quick Thoughts)

Much news has been made in regards to the recent policy of requiring all employers to provide health insurance covering contraception, including religious organizations who may have faith based objections to such services. This presents the question of "whose liberty comes first"? Does the Church’s freedom of religious expression come before the individual?

United States vs Jones (Unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual)

I touched on this decision in Quick Thoughts as a victory for the Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts) in regards to unwarranted GPS tracking of an individual. Now I want to dive a little bit deeper into it, in regards to the Founding influences and how they were applied to this case. You can read the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opinion and additional concurrence opinions here¹ (Cornell University Law School).

The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Scalia and is the main one of focus here. Additional concurrence opinions were also written by Justices Sotomayor and Alito who had differing reasons based on precedent however, reaching the same conclusion.

Synopsis

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government than tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. (sic from SCOTUS ruling)

Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts)

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules law enforcement agencies may not track your privately owned vehicle with a GPS device, unless authorized by a warrant. The decision was unanimous and correct. For starters the Fourth Amendment was designed as a method to prevent the government from intruding into the private matters or property of individuals or groups unless proper cause could be justified BEFORE hand in a warrant, not the other way around.

To often the Bill of Rights has been viewed as the limit of individual or group rights, defining the limit up to what government can do, but it was not designed to do this. The Bill of Rights was designed to specifically prohibit certain actions to further limit what government may do. The Federal Government was bound by certain limits in the Constitution, and a strong argument against the Bill of Rights was that it may end up expanding Government powers, by claiming what was not specifically protected, such as this case. (see Bill of Rights or limitations).

Even though the exact specification of tracking citizens is not specifically prohibited by name in the Fourth Amendment, the concept of it being prohibited is. A person or group CAN NOT be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if every move that person or possession is tracked. You vehicle is your effect, and you are guaranteed to be secure in it from unwarranted searches or seizures. By monitoring its every move in such a manner it is to make the effect and person unsecure from the government, effectively a search of the effect and person.

Not only is government prohibited from warrantless searches and seizures specifically in the Fourth Amendment, but this also has Ninth Amendment implications as well, that to be free from government monitoring is one of the "other rights retained by the people". This Amendment was designed to prevent such a move by the government that usurps the intention and motivation of the Bill of Rights, to protect every right retained by all people not just those specifically cited in the previous eight Amendments.

British Tyranny, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 6:)

The ninth and 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States have very deep roots. Roots that go back to the principal of what the structure of power is. The belief of the founders was a structure power went from the creator, to the people, to government in that order. A lot of world history and specifically Western history influence founding fathers, from the Greek and Roman empires Socrates and Aristotle, to John Locke and Charles Montesquieu. Though British tyranny did have influence in the development of the ninth and 10th amendments you have to go back to philosophy to understand the meaning behind the motivation of the ninth and 10th amendments. It can be summed up with natural rights and the proper order power. These basic values are the principal motivators behind the ninth and 10th amendments.

Here we will look at specifically natural rights and the order of power, without going through the entire genesis of human history, this will start with John Locke and his Second Treatises of government, and also Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu. Both authors and philosophers influence can be seen on founding fathers pre-revolutionary colonial history and writings, revolutionary history writings, early state governments, early charters, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States. These philosophers had a profound impact on the founding fathers just in themselves, and British tyranny and oppression only made these beliefs stronger.

British Tyranny, the Seventh and Eighth Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 5:)

Both the seventh and eighth amendments to the United States Constitution deal of trials, one criminal and one civil. Just like the previous amendments to the Constitution the seventh and eighth amendment could also find their legacy in the British monarchy and how it dealt with the American colonies. Just as with each of the previous amendments the Genesis can directly be traced to tyranny, and are listed as grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George.

The Seventh Amendment:

In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

As mentioned in Part 4 in regards sixth amendment, the right to trial the jury has a long history. But the seventh amendment deals lawsuits where the value of the dispute is greater than $20, not criminal trials. The Constitution ensures the right to trial by jury in criminal cases in Article  III Section 2 and is reinforced sixth amendment to Civil cases. But no guarantee had been given that trial by jury would also be guaranteed in civil cases.

The seventh amendment carries two parts, one in regards to trials by jury in civil suits, and the second the decisions of the jury shall not be dismissed other than to the rules of common law.