It has been about 2 weeks since we posted the link to the "Restoration" plan, I think that is plenty of time for people to have read it and considered it.
Let's plan on moving the conversation forward beginning Wednesday.
Here's the link.
Kerodin
III
Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..
Forgive the late comment, but I've been on the road a lot and just now became aware of 'The Plan'.
ReplyDeleteI'd presume a 'next step' would be to get this 'viral' so that as many as possible would/could read and determine if/when/how/yes/no on it.
Understanding that a 'III Congress' is being formed (term used as according to the map there is not representation from all 50 states, and as such, the body cannot speak as a 'national representative') it would seem appropriate to gain a cross-section of approval.
Why? Because as written, if 'The Plan' is adopted, it foments more draconian practices and penalties than are currently suffered by Americans and does not, if put into practice, restore the Constitution as ratified; that is, it does NOT limit the federal government; it keeps many of its current unconstitutional powers alive.
Example: Page 31 addresses illegal immigrants and the subsequent penalties for being identified as such including permanent marking of an individual's body.
While I'm sure it was well-intentioned, it does not support a return to the Constitution as ratified with the BOR on its face (Yes, I know I'm being redundant, but a point must be made...).
Why? Because at that time (of the ratification of the BOR), there was no such thing as 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration. People just came. So long as they lived within the laws of their State and following, did not violate the few federal laws that existed, they were left alone. And after all, isn't that why we want a restoration? To be left alone to live our lives in peace, enjoy the fruits of our labor, and raise our children the way we see fit?
Therefore, if one is to urge a return to the Constitution as ratified, one cannot have this included in 'The Plan'.
Additionally, when it comes to public aid, if the objective is a return to the Constitution as ratified, then all legislatively mandated public aid of anyone, including all immigrants, goes away. That one thing, if and of itself, will deal with those who are here for a 'free ride'. It has been done before. As late as 1854, President Pierce vetoed legislation that took public tax money to provide for citizens in poor straights (the indigent insane) because there was no constitutional authority to do so. He wrote an 11 page veto to explain it, and an override was never attempted by Congress nor did a case go before SCOTUS on the matter.
That said, Mr. Hunt's position on defacing the body of another human being because he or she did not get the unconstitutional authority to emigrate to the united States is unconstitutional on its face. Added to that, he promotes the same exact tactics used by FEMA in herding these people into stadiums and such much like the response during hurricane Katrina. What's next? Forced labor?
Why would one want to deport, under the restored Constitution, as ratified in 1791 with the BoR included, a person wishing to make their home here that had no public monies spent on them and as evidenced by their behavior (assimilation) they had every intention of becoming an American?
No person was required to make or take a 'loyalty Oath' when the Constitution was ratified. Having an intelligence committee 'evaluate accomplishments' and judge if they've been supportive of American values (the Muslim paragraph - make no mistake, I'm no fan of the Mohamedans) smacks of Soviet 'political correctness' panels.
Pg 32: Confiscation of property? I defy Mr. Hunt to show anywhere in the Constitution as it was ratified with the BoR that this confiscation of property from 'undesirables' would fall under 'Eminent Domain' as originally intended by the ratifiers of the Constitution and the BoR. It smacks of Hitler's Nazism.
Immigration
DeleteThere have been limitations on immigration into this country since well before the Constitution. Travel was much slower, in the past, so the problem never achieved the magnitude that we see, today. There are laws currently in place, but unenforced. If we become a force, our task will be to deal with the rebel government. To spare the many it would take to enforce border protection would be that many out of the fighting force.
The Constitution does have, in Art. I, Section 8, clause 4, a provision for naturalization, though each state was able to decide who could enter and remain within their boundaries, and on what conditions. The centralization came after the 14th Amendment, but even through the 1980s, quota, per country, and education or skill requirements were impose din immigrants. Health became an issue, s well, as time went on and easy of travel became more available. It was 1985, I believe, when the first "amnesty program" began. This became the capstone to the denigration of our immigration policy, which, earlier, was designed for a slow flow of immigrants, providing time and impetus to assimilate. Over 90 years ago, President Theodore Roosevelt gave his opinion on immigration, and it might be worthy to note (A Problem that Can't be Ignored).
Now, during time of war, circumstances are such that expedients need to be adopted to deal with problems. Someone in Idaho may not be concerned with immigration, though someone in Arizona is likely to be concerned. It is up to each Committee of Safety that has control of an area to determine what means might be secured to that area. Though you may object, they may see the need.
As explained in the Preface, each unit is do decide what to do within their sphere of influence. The Constitution makes exception, during time of war or emergency, as reasonable people understand that under such circumstances, civil authority should be maintained to the point that exceptions for the public safety need to be taken.
Its inclusion in the Plan, along with other situation which might not appeal to our moral character, are included so that the realization of the necessity to deal with exigent circumstance is there, and, if necessarily harsh solutions can still be applied.
Every War we have had, from the Revolution to World War II, as recognized the need to deal with some things as the means allowed. To think that we can possibly achieve victory without such considerations is the roadway to failure.
In response to the following:
Delete"No person was required to make or take a 'loyalty Oath' when the Constitution was ratified. Having an intelligence committee 'evaluate accomplishments' and judge if they've been supportive of American values (the Muslim paragraph - make no mistake, I'm no fan of the Mohamedans) smacks of Soviet 'political correctness' panels."
Many loyalty oaths were taken during the Revolution. Loyalty oaths were taken during the Civil War. Loyalty oaths were required to be taken by some people during World War II, and government service, according to the Constitution, requires an oath to the Constitution.So, our own history disputes the claim made in the quote, above.
Page 32 has no reference to confiscation of property, unless the refuse to dispose of it prior to deportation. I would suppose that we could say that they will be deported in 60 days, unless they don't dispose of their property; in which case, they can stay until they dispose of their property. However, I put more thought into the Plan that to leave such a loose end. If you abandon your property, you lose all right to it. That is not unconstitutional.
DeletePart II:
ReplyDeletePg 33: Free Fire Zones? Our border, from its inception, and in practice, has never NEEDED security. So long as foreign military organizations did not cross the border, no military activity was necessary. Opening fire on civilians by a militia or active duty military is, in fact, a war crime, also known as murder, and flies in the face of the "Just War Doctrine" alluded to on page 4 (except for the 'we can do to them whatever they do to us' text -- which is decidedly not a moral response. If they rape and murder 5 year old girls, FREEFOR can't do a 'payback' on their 5 year old girls. FREEFOR can, though, find the rapists and summarily execute them.
Good things? The adherence to "Just War Doctrine" and morality in conflict. A few others, too....
Point of reply: One cannot speak of 'restoring the Constitution as ratified with the BoR' and then adopt a plan that smacks of a hybrid of totalitarianism.
I could go on, but truly, 'The Plan' needs much MUCH more discussion after reflection on whether or not its goal is to restore the Constitution as ratified with the BoR.
I'm for restoration of the Constitution as ratified more than many here might know, but I am decidedly against any unconstitutional action, no matter how well intended, that makes us literally the same as those we would have replaced by more constitutionally minded men and women.
Thanks for reading.
Tell me, just where in the Constitution does it tell us what the rules, during wartime, are? The idea is to kill the enemy; destroy his property; protect your flanks (well, there we go), and otherwise, do all that is necessary for the protection of your troops and your people.
DeleteI have broken the larger comments into manageable pieces, for the sake of discussion.
DeleteThe 'Rules of War' do not include the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants. The fact that the US has done these things in past wars to 'break the will' of the enemy (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc) does not mean that the actions themselves are defensible.
DeleteNuremburg demonstrated that fact: Military leaders as well as members, or those acting in those capacities, have a 'higher authority' they must answer to, and when faced with orders that require war crimes, are bound to disobey them. Whether they do or not is an entirely different matter.
In this case, a quarter to half-mile wide 'free fire zone' is probably the least effective measure one might suggest. As in my response to you via email, regarding not having the man power to man an entire border of the American-Mexican border, a concept called, 'Distributed Area Defense' is a workable alternative for many reasons, the main one being that teams utilizing this operational strategy can discriminate in target selection. Armed military? Fine. Non-combatants moving through? Let them pass and the sheriff can deal with them.
There is nothing indiscriminate about people being killed in securing an area with a free-fire zone or a minefield. Would you prefer the latter, or the former, the former allowing a degree of discrimination?
DeletePS...will be taking a full day to objectively ask some questions, document them, and then send to Mr. Hunt with a cc to you at 'kerodin@kerodin.com' email address.
ReplyDeleteI am NOT just 'throwing stones' or disagreeing on any point for the sake of being contrary. It is my most fervent desire to see the Constitution restored as the 'Supreme Law of the Land' and have government behave accordingly.
Trainer: No foul at all. As I said, there are nits to pick, and I have more than a few. That said, I have not yet seen anyone take the time or effort to put forth such an exhaustive piece of work.
DeleteYou insight is invaluable to me, and I look forward to it.
K
Email sent as indicated. There actually has been some work done by others just as well-intentioned as the author of 'The Plan'
DeleteDr. Eugend P. Vieira's work on Constiutional Homeland Security was very serious, and provided a workable method that didn't violate the Constitution. It's much more difficult to implement, though, because of the difficulties posed by ever changing circumstances and executive orders.
Still worth reading, however.
Other attempts such as, "The 4th Continental Congress" and others all have a central them on 'controlling the milita and its operations' rather than true restoration of Constituitonal government as was ratified with the BOR in 1791.
Let me know if you have any questions....
Thanks.
Very good comments Trainer.
ReplyDeleteSorry K, I haven't had a lot of Internet time on this trip, I'll try to get up to speed. ;)
Miss Violet
Great stuff Trainer, and you sure got the "immigration problem" cracked.
ReplyDeleteAnyone should govern their communities any way they wish. It's going to be decentralization, so might as well accept that now. The Citadel has a ton of rules, for example, and that's a great thing...for those who want to live in that fashion.
I still say go with the wise man---"Only By Consent."
Some thoughts about the relationship between the government(s) and the people:
ReplyDeleteIt has been suggested the states are sovereign and have supremacy over the federal government. The last time this was tested was about 150 years ago, and the test failed. However, to understand sovereignty, let's look at it realistically. The people are sovereign, or more correctly, were sovereign, until they relinquished a degree of that sovereignty to the state government, via its Constitution, and to the federal government, via its Constitution. The states had no sovereignty over the federal government, only a working agreement with. Sovereign, by its definition, is absolute. There is no sovereign (King) remaining in this country, unless one has reverted to a state of nature, and then, only until he creates a social compact with others.
Setting the record straight, the states did not create the federal government. The federal government was created by the people selecting delegates, sending them to a convention funded by the state, but otherwise outside of their control, ratifying the Constitution as presented, and when the citizens of nine states get confer such ratification, the federal government came into existence via the Constitution.
The states are not superior to the federal government. Both state and federal governments have their "sphere of influence", which, for the most part, are defined in Article I, sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Constitution. Only certain "powers and authorities" are granted to the federal government. Limitations or imposed upon state government, to define that distinction of spheres of influence. Neither is "superior", except within its sphere of influence. Unfortunately, this balance was disrupted by the "Reconstruction Acts", and more particularly with the forced ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from the Preface (page 2) of the Plan:
ReplyDeleteThe Plan is made as detailed an expedient for the variety of possible circumstances that might arise. Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions. Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.
***
The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education. What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.
If you don't mind, a couple of quick thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, with regard to immigration, I think a 10 year moratorium is in order. Jumping ahead and assuming the the good Lord aids us in the win, the country will need some time to get adjusted to true Republican government. Immigration can certainly wait. There is no need to deal with anybody but Americans during the transition. I could also entertain non-citizens (green cards, foreign students, illegals, etc.) being sent home for this period.
While I'm for restoration as ratified as well, I have come to the belief that that certain amendments will have to be fairly quickly adopted to take into account amost 240 years of history. It's painfully obvious that the anti-Federalists were 100% correct about having a Bill of rights. Imagine the nightmare we would be in at this time were it not for the first ten amendments. Mark Levin's book, the "Liberty Amendments" addresses some of the obvious ones. He doesn't go near far enough for me. For example, I don't believe anybody should come into this world committed to any debt or programs such as social security or Medicare. For a second, universal suffrage has got to go. Jefferson was clearly wrong on this. It has contributed greatly to the position we're in at the present. Amendments will have to be added.
And let's not fool ourselves. There ain't nothing gonna happen unless there is a complete and total victory. A victory such that th enemy lies torn abd broken on the battlefield unable to resist the will of the victor. No return to the Constitution as ratified, no amendments, no immigration reform, nothing. That's gonna take some damn nasty fighting. Undertaking such a thing here in this country will be unlike anything to date. While I am struggling personal with the moral aspects, I have come to the conclusion that it damn sure won't be a game and it won't be civil. While games and civility have rules, I'm not sure that war does. War isn't a game and it is a breakdown in civility. They should also be brought to a decisive conclusion as quickly as possible. I'm thinking all options should be left on the table. That doesn't mean all of them have to be used, but there's no sense being a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
So there's my first salvo I guess. I got a lot more. Oh, Trainer and Gary, I appreciate what you're sayin'. Just one thing though, tempus fugit.
Alan,
DeleteLet me suggest that the immigration matter being discussed would be based upon local elements dealing with circumstances in their area.
That leads to the next point, which leads me to presume that you have not read the Plan. The idea of multiple fronts, though contrary to rules of conventional warfare, is means of forcing division of the rebel government forces. If there are 30 white dots (see simplified explanation), and the hold a ten mile area, the is 30 40 mile perimeters. That means that the rebel government has to have forty command and supply centers, and cover a perimeter of 1,200 miles to even begin to contain them. As areas expand, and as new areas are opened, the magnitude of the demand on the rebel government forces is further diminished.
The whole premise of the Plan is a means to wage such a restoration with minimal loss of life and destruction of property.
Oh, with regard to the III Congress. All states need to be represented by at least one delegate. That should be the first order of business in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSome conversations have suggested that the Plan begins with centralized government. This is absolutely contrary to the concept of the Plan. Any "centralization" will be local, though it will expand, up to the state level, as the "white dots" grow to encompass most of the state. The federal will never be any more than was intended by the Constitution.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a more comprehensive understanding of the Plan can be had by reading the following:
A Simplified Explanation of "The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government" (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=365)
I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe "The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government". Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself.
However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work.
Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds -- all of them).
Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger.
After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area.
As time goes on, these areas become even larger, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cites and metropolitan areas).
As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely.
Nice thought and I appreciate the graphic. But as those little white dots appear they're gonna be engaged and eradicated if possible. For a graphic of that, think that gopher game where the kids smash the gopher with a mallet when one pops out of a hole.
DeleteSo, while I earnestly hope that it goes as you describe, I tend to disbelieve. Everybody focuses on the "your AO" concept. Nothing wrong with that, but the fight may not come in your AO. It may require moving to the fight. Consider the actions of the southern militia in 1780. They generally didn't fight in their own AO's. A great deal of the time they kitted up and moved to contact.
It's important to remember that I think. If those men didn't do what they did we certainly would not have won the revolution.
That being said, nobody really knows. Hence, all options must remain on the table.
Alan,
DeleteImagine the difficulty the government would have if there were thirty gophers. As the number of gophers increases, the difficulty becomes even greater. And, since such areas have determined, by their local population to return to constitutional government, this poses a more difficult problem. Te government has to be precise in its "cleansing', so that would have to enter the community (if they could), find the leadership and take them out. Now, this leaves us with the idea of a decisive event (battle), such as even Washington tried to avoid, or "small cuts", which is very much akin to Washington chose as the safest way to win the war, regardless of the battle.
Now, what effect would that have on the remainder of the community? Resentment over the federal intrusion? However, this aspect doesn't begin until Part III of the Plan. And, the areas that you have defined as AOs are really restored communities. It is a civil aspect that has military defense (Militia and Posse Comitatus), and is concerned, at that point, only with maintaining and expanding that community.
However, in Parts I and II, it would be wise of those teams to operate as far from their home base as practical. Subsequently, in Part III and above, these teams may wish to continue their aggressive nature, either under (preferable) or outside of the authority of the Committee. This, however, is a local matter and can only be addressed by those within the community, and, whether they wished to support expansion of the restored community outside, far outside, or quite remote, to their area.
Some have suggested that if we are to restore Constitutional Government, we must abide by the Constitution to do so. So, let's look at the ramification of that. Article VI, clause 2, to wit:
ReplyDelete"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
So, by what authority do we counteract those laws that have been enacted to bar, as much as possible, any means of the people enforcing or restoring the Constitution?
This does not consider other provisions in the Constitution that would, otherwise, constitute violations of the Constitution -- to restore it.
With that in mind, let's look at "dissolution of government", this from an article I wrote a while back, Sons of Liberty No 14
(http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/sol14.htm)
I don't think a dissolution of Government is necessary - a simple understanding that everything post-Marbury has been fraudulent and beyond the scope of intent, and everything after the 12th Amendment done under threat of violence, negates all those actions, so a simple "Reset" is all that is needed. "We the People declare everything after X date to have been accomplished by fraud and deception and threat of violence, so it is void and doesn't even need a repeal. We'll re-submit 11th and 12th Amendments after we let the dust settle and bury the corpses of those who made us clean up this mess..."
DeleteK
Kerodin,
DeleteLet me start at your ending. It was not just the 11th & 12th Amendments which were used to define/redefine how government was to operate. There were many statutes that set up certain procedures and the operation of government. We tend to assume, however, that making an operation government from document of just over 4,000 words, is practical. It was the statute, all consistent with the Constitution, that made the government operational.
Though the example I will provide was more external to government, it, too, was necessary to define that role that government would take, and what authority it really had, others were more directed at the internal workings, and from the first day of Congress, were worked out to provide functionability to that government.
Regarding the extent of that authority, in 1825 a statute was enacted to provide for punishment to those who would damage government property. The following is from Habeas Corpus - The Guardian of Liberty (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/hh06.htm):
* * *
Perhaps another way to understand the limitations of the national government, is to look to a law enacted in 1825. Article I, section 8, clause 17, grants Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over lands ceded to the United States by the state in which the land lies.
An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes. (March 3, 1825)
"That if any person or persons, within any fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, the site whereof is ceded to, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on a site of any lighthouse, or other needful building belonging to the United States, the sight whereof is ceded to them [United States], and under their jurisdiction, as aforesaid, shall, willfully..."
Now, this law was enacted just 35 years after the first Congress sat under the Constitution. What did they know that we do not know? For them to punish you for crimes against property of the United States, the property had to be on land ceded to the United States, and jurisdiction also ceded to the United States. That means the state had to relinquish its jurisdiction over the property. Can there be any doubt that the Congress, in 1825, understood the limitations of their authority under the Constitution?
* * *
To Marbury v. Madison, the decision in that case, by Justice Marshall, has been misrepresented, recently. If you read the case, the determination was that if there is a dispute between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, who else could resolve the dispute? It could be neither of the two branches involved, as if it were left to one, then the other was without power, and vice-versa. Therefore, it could only be that third branch that could resolve such disputes. Can you offer an alternative? Unfortunately, subsequent courts have taken that concept and expanded it to serve a far more nefarious purpose.
My research, quite in depth, indicates that many decisions of the time were efforts to resolve what federal authority was, and to settle those areas unaddressed, or that were otherwise subject to various interpretations. And, for the most part, until the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), the activities of government, all three branches, were not of the nature that we saw beginning in 1861, where in that year, a blatant and direct violation (West Virginia statehood) occurred, for the first time. The next blatant violation was when a Presidential Proclamation (Emancipation Proclamation) was issued, again in blatant and direct violation of the Constitution. It is because of this, and the magnitude of effort to rebuild government from near scratch, that the Plan proposes that the Constitution, the state constitutions, and both state and federal statutes, be reverted to those that existed on July 4, 1860. Otherwise, it may take many years to restructure government to an operational form, as it did back then.
What are we going to do about the debt...Tell the other countries to get fucked along with anybody on social security...That's the one I don't know what to do about...We need to get back to sound money but getting there might be bloodier than retaking are freedoms...
DeleteLineman,
DeleteI realize that the Plan is a lot to read. It was also a lot to write. Perhaps, if you read it, you will see that one solution was offered. However, it is only offered as a solution that comes to mind to me. Those decisions cannot be made now, for there is no body that can make them. They will be made by the Congress that is instituted after Restoration.
What I have offered, which I believe will also deal with our foreign debt and force a balance of trade, without hostility from foreign debt holders, is explained in
An Economic Solution" http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=378
Disagree Sam. I hear what you're sayin' but a 28th amendment repealing the 11th through 27th has to be put in place. Words to some effect explaining the reason in a section or sections. Necessary for historical reasons. A documentation of the "reset" if you will incorporated into our Constitution for posterity.
DeleteNow, we're jumping ahead of course. We gotta win first. No, check that. We gotta quit debating first. Engage second. Win third. Then home.
If we simply repeal those amendments, which is certainly a viable path, how do we undo the damage of Judicial Review since Marbury? Every precedent is predicated on the fallacy that Marbury gave SCOTUS the final word on what is Constitutional - how do we scrub that clean going forward?
DeleteDisagree Sam. I hear what you're sayin' but a 28th amendment repealing the 11th through 27th has to be put in place. Words to some effect explaining the reason in a section or sections. Necessary for historical reasons. A documentation of the "reset" if you will incorporated into our Constitution for posterity.
DeleteNow, we're jumping ahead of course. We gotta win first. No, check that. We gotta quit debating first. Engage second. Win third. Then home.
We are lead to believe that the United States Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law when a case is brought before it. We are often quite surprised when it appears that the Supreme Court ruled contrary to the Constitution. Perhaps an understanding of another "separation" that exists, though not of the nature of the person, rather the nature of the laws themselves.
DeleteFor at least a few decades, those with direct relationships with the federal government were being subjected to decisions that did not seem quite consistent with the Constitution. It was not until 1936, however, that Justice Brandeis provided insight into the changing nature, or perhaps more correctly, expanding nature of the court. The case was Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 US 288). Justice Brandeis, in a separate but concurring decision, provided insight into the evolving role of the United States Supreme Court, wherein he said:
The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions 'is legitimate only in the last resort...
2. The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.' 'It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.'
3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.'
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter...
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained.
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
7. 'When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.
Didn't Justice Brandeis just tell us that they would not rule on the constitutionality of a matter before them, if they could find any way to avoid such ruling?
I did read it and maybe I missed the part in there about dealing with foreign governments holding our debt...I did read about cutting gov spending but nothing on doing away with the debt we have now...I read about doing away with fiat and returning to money issued by the US government... You seem to call out anyone with a question on not reading your plan like its the answer to all our questions...I don't know how well I could set across a table with you with your arrogance shown here...How was I suppose to know you had it written somewhere else...The link only took me to your plan not everything you had wrote about the topic...If we don't have a plan on restoring other governments money then we are going to be fighting the world IMO...
DeleteLineman,
DeleteIn the Preface to the Plan, it explains that there are linked articles that are more detailed in certain areas, "which might assist in more detailed planning and understanding." Some of the links are internal (link to other portions of the Plan, though 25 of them are external. The Plan is 47 pages, with all but one of the external links included (PDF/Appendix), it is 298 pages. So, the links were put in, at appropriate places, to provide additional thought in those areas, though they are not necessary for the Plan, itself.
If one is interested in a specific area, say public education, taxation, economic solution, or wants historical perspective, in greater detail, say Are Cops Constitutional, The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence, then they are accusable through the link, or in the Appendix.
The Plan is intended to be a sequence of activity to achieve the objective. In writing it, I often struck out much of what I had written along the lines of the current discussions, as it deviated from the primary purpose. The Plan is not written in gold, it is a guide, and I felt it necessary to make the overall as concise as possible.
So, if you read "A Economic Solution", you will see that there is proposed a solution that avoids conflict, as credit will be given to foreign obligations, without the loss of gold and silver from the country --which was a serious problem (gold) created by the Federal Reserve in the late twenties and early thirties, that is described by some as "tons of gold left New York Harbor, in the holds of ships, every day."
I have been endeavoring to respond to all that is posed, here in the discussion. If I seem arrogant, I apologize. Perhaps it is shortness, since there are so many to respond to. But, I am doing the best that I can to explain the rationale behind what I have written.
However, to finally answer your question, it is the "external dollars" that are counted s foreign debt, in "An Economic Solution".
That link is no where near where you talked about the debt...It was under Free market Advisory Committee... I barely had time to read all that you wrote in your plan because I do have a job and a young family so trying to read all the links as well will take some time...All you would have had to say is there is a link, state where it was in the plan, and let me know what you think and it would of gone over a lot better..Thanks for the apology and I do get where your coming from...I guess thats what happens when you put something out there that is thought provoking... I will try and get those links read and get back to you...
DeleteThe whole point of the III Congress is to define a goal (reset to the Constitution as ratified) and to then determine how we get there. There is no doubt in my mind that Alan is correct that we have a long road before we will even be able to see the light of the Constitution as ratified.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, the III Congress has to find the best path to get us to our goal. This path has to always draw us closer to our goal, not farther away. For example, we can never condone something such as torture. I fear that if we don't have a "plan" it will become very easy to slide into tyrannical behaviors ourselves. And if we do that the only hope of the Constitution as ratified is gone.
I am also aware that everything will not go according to plan, but if we don't have one, nothing will.
I have read Gary's Plan and I think he has put a lot of thought and effort into detailing how we can get back to the reset. I made a list of parts of the plan that I agreed with and parts of the plan that I disagreed with. On the parts I disagreed with I have begun thinking of how to do it differently, if possible.
A main point that I like about the plan is the local structure up to the nation level. This point has been pounded on for years now and it is true, a good foundation is needed to properly grow.
On the oath, at first when reading the plan, I detested the idea. I thought it smacked of totalitarianism. But upon further thought, oaths have been around for as long as man and they serve a purpose. The purpose is to distinguish who can be trusted vs. those who cannot be trusted. Who is with us and who is not.
A comeback here is that an oath is easily broken and oaths are broken everyday. Those who break oaths, when found out, are dealt with harshly, as they should be. What is the first name you think of when you hear the word traitor? Benedict Arnold. He is still remembered with derision today. And further, if someone is a traitor, what is the result or should be the result? Death. In my opinion, an oath is very serious and should be treated as such.
Another point I have a contention with is how to raise monies to support the cause from those localities under our control. Gary had mentioned property and sales tax receipts would be used (pg 22). I entirely disagree with any form of property tax. I can see the use of sales tax. But there is a problem especially in the time period of below a state being liberated. With so many transactions in today's world electronic, how will you get the cash? Gary is right that local services such as the fire department and hospital have to be maintained. How will this be funded. I am not entirely sure, but my thoughts are as follows: a sales tax that has to be paid in cash, even if the remainder of the transaction is put on the credit card. Also, if the liberated populace is not paying any other taxes in property taxes, state income taxes, and possibly federal taxes, the sales tax percent could be higher with out it being a overbearing burden to the locals.
In the end, it will be like the Revolution, certain men will become bankrupted financially supporting the cause, while other men who put nothing into it will reap the rewards. But that is life.
In regards to the III Congress - yes I agree, it does need representation from each state. But at the same time we need to move forward on this. And to be blunt, really none of us are representatives as we have not been sent by our States. We are just the ones that showed up realizing a task needs to be done.
Chad Miller
III Congress - MT
Chad,
DeleteI will comment only on your comment regarding taxes. For the most part, I like your analysis.
So, let's look at taxes. Are we in a position to structure a tax collection plan? Do we have the resources? Would people agree to a higher tax, as you suggest in sales tax? This was taken into consideration, and my conclusion was that sales and property taxes are collected locally. The mechanism is in place already, and can be utilized, as is. People are used to these taxes and should have no objection to their continuation.
Perhaps at the County level, and surely, at the state level, once brought into the restored community, an evaluation of the ways and means of taxation can be addressed. However, that will take time, so, as an interim means, use what is already there.
I will not agree to property taxes. We should not have to ransom our land and homes from the government every year.
ReplyDeleteTeresa Hoke House
III Congress-WA
"Perhaps at the County level, and surely, at the state level, once brought into the restored community, an evaluation of the ways and means of taxation can be addressed. However, that will take time, so, as an interim means, use what is already there."
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying here Mr. Hunt, but as I read your words I shudder. The first thought I have is of the Federal Income Tax that we now bear the burden of carrying, even though it was only "temporary".
I know you are going to try to tell me otherwise and that my fears are unfounded. You will not convince me so do not make me call bull pucky on you. Anyone that has the power to tax has enough power to be corupt.
Teresa Hoke House
III Congress- WA
Teresa,
DeleteI grant that it does pose a problem. However, if we intent to restore the Constitution, we will have to have faith in those who represent us, as we move in that direction.
We also have to have a means to provide for those services (not welfare, etc.) that are needed to keep people as safe and comfortable as possible during the course of change (hearts and minds).
Given that we desire to meet these ends, absent a better proposition, we need to have some idea of at least a proposed solution. If any community finds another means, once it becomes constitutional, it will determine what is best to serve the need. What you see in the Plan is only a recommendation. It is not binding, rather, to act as a guide and to address as many potential problems as I was able to conceive of.
Gary,
DeleteWhile monies are needed to be raised to fund certain services, we need to move beyond certain types of taxes aka compulsory taxes. Property tax and income taxes are compulsory. Excise taxes target only certain groups. With property tax, it takes away an individual's right to private property (the land). Income taxes also take away an individual's right to private property (earnings).
There have to be principals involved in areas that are liberated. One of those principals is the absence of compulsory taxes.
I detest all taxes, but do understand that certain ones (local/state) are needed to fund certain services. If they are not in place, then certain people will not pay anything in, but will expect the benefits. A sales tax, at least to a degree, gives an individual a choice.
And if I had a choice I would pay a higher sales tax over a property tax as I would then own my property. I would not be renting it.
Groundhog,
DeleteThat may be, However, as I see it, a tax in place already has the least impact. Income tax is out of the question, as it is collected by the federal government, which will of been ousted from participation within the restored areas.
If the local areas agrees to do away with property tax, immediately, or later on when it is more practical, is up to the community. I only offer what is most viable during the times of disruption, to minimize that disruption's impact on the harmony of the community.
As was said in the Preface, everything has to suit the needs of each community. There is nothing binding in the Plan, though at least, a starting point.
Fort instance, there was a rather severe discussion on immigration. Well, I posed an option that appealed to people in Arizona and Texas, especially in the border regions. Those distant from the border would think it extremely harsh. Some will accept it, others will be forced to come up with a solution that fits there needs. The important thing is that people reading the Plan will begin to develop alternatives, end they can be presented to the community so that all that are qualified can participate in the final decision for that area.
Good insights on taxes, Chad. "Property tax" is an oxymoron for the reason you note---if you gotta pay rent on it, then it's not really your property. The goal of Rule of Law is to protect property, not the other way around...which seems to be a common mistake in these parts, at least lately.
DeleteYou're also right that moral justification tends toward sales taxes, since technically they are optional...you don't have to buy something if you don't want. Two problems with that, though---you then have to force merchants to become tax collectors, plus those taxes can quickly devolve into the European systems of "value added taxes" whereby virtually every exchange is a sale at every level. Before you know it, a product's cost consists mostly of taxes. Once again, a serious property problem.
Of course, that's a problem with nearly all tax systems, much like a "house rake" at a card game. Over enough time, the house gets all the money, which in turn is necessary to keep the scam of fractionalized fiat money going. Lastly, you wrote...
"If they are not in place, then certain people will not pay anything in, but will expect the benefits."
There's a simple answer to that---"Yeah, so what?" One man's expectations are not any sort of rightful claim on any other man. [This applies in other respects too, ahem.] Don't pay, don't get. Economists love to yap about freeloaders, but they're no problem at all as long as they can't force you to do the loading.
Is anyone keeping a running list of what is acceptable and what is a dealbreaker?
ReplyDelete"We also have to have a means to provide for those services (not welfare, etc.) that are needed to keep people as safe and comfortable as possible during the course of change (hearts and minds)."
ReplyDeleteOn a federal level, the Constitution already provides that means through direct taxation, Article 1,Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
For the local level, it's up to the local citizenry to vote in any support of infrastructure through taxation, whatever the category. To require taxation with no representation (the 'temporary' period suggested is, in fact, involuntary (without consent) and allows no redress) flies in the face of the intent of the plan itself, which is to restore constitutional government..
If Gary's reply to Teresa is referring to 'police' and 'fire' services 'to keep people safe', again, the local village, town, city, county, etc, can determine what they want/need for those areas. Personally, I can take the responsibility with my own neighborhood, friends, and family, to keep ourselves 'safe'. But that's me. Others may want a local constabulary (not a paramilitary law enforcement platoon/company). Either way, it's up to the local area to figure that out.
As to 'having faith in those who represent us', well, 'no'. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. If we do attain restoration of constitutional government, the only way we won't set up future generations to go through this again is by watching all elected representatives very, very closely, and hold them immediately accountable for any action taken that violates the rights of the People. At the least, stealing a saying from Ronald Reagan would be appropriate, "Trust, but verify." And, as soon as that trust is broken, immediate censure, impeachment and prosecution for violation of Oath and office.
Again, imagine if there were no BoR. The Constitution wuld be long gone somewhere between Civil War and the early 1900's.
DeleteWe should be thankful to thosed that insisted upon it as it probably bought us time.
Following the example, I think a Bill of Rectification, a set of amendments to better limit the Federal government, would be in order after restoration. There's 240 years of history to look at and incorporate. There is absolutely no reason to believe that just by restoration we would be protectiing our prosterity.
No one is to be trusted.
That community can only determine what services any community needs. Roads and bridges need to be maintained, parks need to be maintained, streets to be kept clean, administrative staff to be paid. And, initially, jobs may need to be made to begin weaning people off of welfare.
DeleteYour suggestion about federal taxes, well, I want the federal government OUT of unconstitutional activities. However, at the local level., you can either deal with how you want to asses taxes in a new form, or you can continue that which people are used to, until such time as it is more convenient to adopt what best suits them. Most aspects of the Plan are "stop-gap", until conditions allow for determining what is best, in each community, county, state, and the federal levels. These final solutions require contemplative thought, not new jerk reaction. So, it is probably best that the final decisions be delayed until the can be made in a less than hectic environment.
Regarding "direct taxes", have you ever wondered why the we only applied twice, until the Federal Reserve came on the scene, and in those instances, for short duration? In at least three of the Constitutional Conventions, the Federalists declared that "direct taxes" would only be applied in an emergency, which accounts for the two instances. From a legal standpoint, this is called "legislative intent". From where I stand, this is an abuse of power, unless applied as intended. Absent that Direct Tax, could we give hundreds of billions to foreign nations, every year? Absent those means, could we possibly expect investors to loan the government many trillions of dollars (means to repay), which has become a perpetual debt on our posterity (cannot be paid off by normal means)? Ironically, the "direct tax" contemplated was on land, not on labor.
In your last paragraph, you say that you can not trust representatives, though you will need them. That is a dilemma, but outside of a town sized government (where all good vote on all matters), what are the alternatives? Well, here is where it gets interesting. A county can determine at what point an issue is to be placed before the voters, instead of being determined by the representatives. At the state level, any enactments should be in accordance with the state constitution (interestingly, it appears that many laws are not within that authority, though the courts have invented a phrase, "police powers", that allows them to go beyond their respective constitutions). The same should be applied to the federal level, and, if you have read my work on Habeas Corpus, you will see that they have exceeded their authority on the federal level, as well.
Te final solution, however, is addressed in the Plan where a Citizens Grand Jury is created. It is not punitive to allow the vote to determine whether they should continue to hold office, as elections are bought, and the candidates are handpicked. This is addressed in the Petition linked at the beginning of the Plan. Currently, only the Congress can discipline members of Congress, each house within itself (Article I, Section 5). Unless an amendment, or other means, of punishing those who violate their oath or trust, is brought into being, we will continue to have the problem with representatives. If, however, consequences are severe, including fine and imprisonment, then we can probably expect far better representation than we are used to.
The Brandies rules for the court are fine, truly. However, if we are discussing a 'reset' to restore constitutional government (in most cases at least here, we're in agreement on the 'as ratified in 1791 with the BOR intact), it would follow that we cannot pick and choose from point to point in the national history. So, an alternative might be for all questions on national (federal) government supported by and authorized by the Constitution (a creature of State delegations agreed upon in draft at the Constitutional Convention and then ratified by the states, thus creating the federal government), that original intent be used as the litmus test for actions that are or are not acceptable at that level (national). As for local, remember that until certain SCOTUS decisions, the Constitution and associated amendments only apply to the federal government; any area that the States were capable of governing themselves was left to that State.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the original intent (my understanding) of checks and balances is that all three branches checked and balanced each other. If SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the Constitution or the final check and balance, it follows that we are being ruled (not governed, because there is no form of redress to a SCOTUS ruling) by 9 black robed monarchs and not by our representation, elected to govern. Example: If SCOTUS ruled on an issue that was outside of their purview, say, on who can join the Boy Scouts, no matter which way the ruling went, Congress today retains the authority to tell SCOTUS it's none of their affair because they are operating outside of their authority.
An aside: For those who'd really like a better than casual understanding of how our constitution should control the actions of all three branches, there's a great DVD series by Michael Farris at the American Family Association called "Constitutional Literacy". 25 episodes of about 20 minutes each. Understandable enough for middle school youngsters; interesting enough for hobbyist scholars. Goes through the entire constitution, explains original intent, how the court actually operates, what 'checks and balances' actually are, etc. Just a thought.
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=728
Gary,
DeleteThank you for link. And I believe everyone here knows what time it is. I mean no disrespect, but do you understand what we are doing here in this "conversation"? It is not an attempt to tear down your plan that we have been discussing. I really hope you do not feel that is the case.
The goal is to restore the Constitution and for me that is as ratified. This is something I believe in my core. And I believe this is the case for many commenting here.
We are looking for the path to achieve this goal without becoming tyrants ourselves.
I would like to thank you for the time, thought and effort you placed in your plan. It has a lot of good ideas, ideas that are beyond me, but, at the same time we are all individualists and have our own thoughts and beliefs.
Chad
III Congress-MT
The Other (not so) Thin Line
Deletehttp://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=657
Gary, as to your thought, "That community can only determine what services any community needs. Roads and bridges need to be maintained, parks need to be maintained, streets to be kept clean, administrative staff to be paid. And, initially, jobs may need to be made to begin weaning people off of welfare."
ReplyDeleteAbsent a total economic collapse, the people on the dole can accomplish this, for a "normal" salary. If everything goes down the drain, there won't be any viable currency, so people will have to adjust to working for the community instead of working for money.
I would expect that the FRNs will serve the purpose, until such time as a permanent form of Constitutionally sound currency is created. An Economic Solution addresses the conversion.
Deletehttp://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=378
Some have suggested that the whole matter of Timothy McVeigh warrants being revisited by the Patriot Community. In that light, I am going to be posting three older articles, that were published back in the nineties, to the Blog, which will allow for discussion. The first is An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh. http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=736
ReplyDeleteFor the second in the series about Timothy McVeigh, What did Timothy McVeigh really say? This is an explanation of the 47 words Tim spoke during allocution (statement of prisoner at sentencing).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=741
The third part on Tim McVeigh is now posted on the Blog at The Passing of the Torch http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=745
ReplyDelete