DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

ican711nm wrote:

My Constitution as lawfully amended is the same as yours and everyone else's.

OK, that clears up one possible misunderstanding.

ican711nm wrote:

I claim and can support the claim that The Congress, the President, and the Federal Courts have repeatedly, unlawfully amended OCALA.

Do you mean to say that every time the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, that it, in some fashion or other, is amending the Constitution?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I claim and can support the claim that The Congress, the President, and the Federal Courts have repeatedly, unlawfully amended OCALA.

Do you mean to say that every time the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, that it, in some fashion or other, is amending the Constitution?

No, Joe, it doesn't mean that at all.

What it means is that Ican's computer is still working as it should -- and it will allow him to type any words that come to his mind.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I claim and can support the claim that The Congress, the President, and the Federal Courts have repeatedly, unlawfully amended OCALA.

Do you mean to say that every time the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, that it, in some fashion or other, is amending the Constitution?

No! have repeatedly is not the same as every time.

I'll say it differently: I claim and can support the claim that The Congress, the President, and the Federal Courts have often, unlawfully amended OCALA.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

No! have repeatedly is not the same as every time.

I'll say it differently: I claim and can support the claim that The Congress, the President, and the Federal Courts have often, unlawfully amended OCALA.

Well, it's not particularly worthwhile to engage in a discussion at that level of generality. I don't know if you have done this or not (I haven't been following this thread very closely), but perhaps you could identify one of these instances where the congress, the president, and/or the courts have unlawfully amended the constitution.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

... perhaps you could identify one of these instances where the congress, the president, and/or the courts have unlawfully amended the constitution.

Sure!

United States v. Butler (1936)

This was a dispute over whether certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 1933, (by Congress and the President) conflict with the federal Constitution. The provisions in dispute provided subsidies to farmers to alleviate certain serious economic difficulties the farmers were suffering. It was argued that public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." But the funds consisted of money transferred from one group of citizens (the general public) to another (farmers).

The actual wording from Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph is:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

So the correct quote is: "to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States". This clause is clearly not talking about funds being appropriated by the Congress to provide for the welfare of an individual group of citizens at the expense of the welfare of another group; it is talking about "the defense and general welfare" of all the citizens of our country. It is talking about defending and maintaining the United States of America as a republic free of tyranny.

Yes, one can argue that providing subsidies to farmers at the expense of non-farmers did/does help maintain the USA. If that were actually true and normal free market processes couldn't do that, then an amendment adopted according to Article V was the lawful way to solve the problem.

This Supreme Court decision did in effect unlawfully amend the federal Constitution. Worse, it facilitated adoption of many many other such unlawful transfers of money (e.g., entitlement programs) which now total more than half of total federal expenditures. It facilitates the federal government following California to that sorry point (perhaps after creating a welfare program for that entire state) where those who who have been paying the tax bill lose their jobs, lose their business, go bankrupt, flee, go on welfare themselves, or any combination thereof.

0 Replies

I offer a second example to illustrate how the Supreme Court can and did rectify one of its past errors. While this case does not relate to my two specific arguments in this forum, I think it a very important example of the Court amending the federal Constitution and then subsequently (58 years later) invalidating that amendment.

Plessey v. Ferguson (1896)

The dispute was whether it was unconstitutional for a state to require railroad coaches to provide "separate but equal" accomodations for the "white and colored races" and that no person or persons shall be admitted to sit in coaches other than those assigned to them on account of their race.

The Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the law" phrase didn't apply and the State's law was decided not to be unconstitutional.

In 1954, the Supreme Court decided in effect that the phrase "separate but equal" was an oxymoron (which it certainly was/is) and overruled its 1896 decision.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

United States v. Butler (1936)
[snip]
This Supreme Court decision did in effect unlawfully amend the federal Constitution. Worse, it facilitated adoption of many many other such unlawful transfers of money (e.g., entitlement programs) which now total more than half of total federal expenditures.

I think you have the wrong case. United States v. Butler, in an opinion by conservative jurist Owen Roberts, struck down the New Deal regulations. Specifically, the Court ruled that "Congress has no power to enforce its commands on the farmer to the ends sought by the Agricultural Adjustment Act. It must follow that it may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance."

Perhaps you were thinking of Wickard v. Filburn (1942)?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

While this case does not relate to my two specific arguments in this forum, I think it a very important example of the Court amending the federal Constitution and then subsequently (58 years later) invalidating that amendment. Plessey v. Ferguson (1896).

I'm relieved to see, ican, that you do not hold the position that the Supreme Court can never interpret the constitution; certainly, if Plessy was in error(and thus, in your view, an impermissible "amendment" to the constitution) and Brown v. Board of Education was correct, then it's clear that the court can, at least occasionally, get it right.

But what standard do you use to determine if the court got it right or got it wrong? Since, by your own admission, the court is allowed to interpret the constitution, what is the standard that should guide it in its interpretation?

0 Replies

I believe that Ican't expects a personal call, preferably, not too late in the evening, from Justice Rhenquist, so that he can give the good jurist his marching orders. That which irritates Ican't is obviously an unacceptable amending of the constitution . . .

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Perhaps you were thinking of Wickard v. Filburn (1942)?

I've skimmed this case. Unless a more careful reading leads me to believe otherwise, I think that it doesn't overturn United States v. Butler.

Originally, Social Security was a required retirement plan secured by the federal government such that all funds paid in were held in trust by the federal government. The amount paid out to a person was generally directly related to what a person paid in. Subsequently (sometime in the 60s or 70s), this trust fund was merged with the general fund -- it ceased being a trust fund -- and its surplus began being used to pay other government expenditures too. At that point Social Security became a "ponzi scheme" wherein money paid in by working people was paid out to retired people: that is, it began transferring money from one group to another in the hope that in would always exceed out. But federal government forecasts indicate that won't continue for much longer.

I'm looking for a Supreme Court decision that approved the current "ponzi scheme". Perhaps such never occurred. In that case, I would have to limit my accusation, regarding the unlawfully amending parties, to the Congress and the President, but not the Supreme Court.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I believe that Ican't expects a personal call, preferably, not too late in the evening, from Justice Rhenquist, so that he can give the good jurist his marching orders. That which irritates Ican't is obviously an unacceptable amending of the constitution . . .

You overlook oher possibilities.

Perhaps it's Rhenquist giving me my "marching orders." Laughing

Then again perhaps it's merely me filing my lawsuit with the federal district court seeking a summary judgment which I may ultimately appeal to the Supreme Court. :wink:

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

But what standard do you use to determine if the court got it right or got it wrong? Since, by your own admission, the court is allowed to interpret the constitution, what is the standard that should guide it in its interpretation?

The Court should interpret the federal Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence (e.g., "... to secure these Rights Governments are instituted among Men..." ) and the powers actually delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. The 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear to me that the federal Constitution (i.e., OCALA), limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically delegated to it by OCALA.

No where in the federal Constitution is its interpretation authorized to vary with circumstance. The promotion of the idea of a "living Constitution" whose interpretation shall vary with exigencies is an invention conjured up by those seeking to bypass the constitutional amendment process specified in its Article V.

0 Replies

No, Ican't, you allege that this is the case, you have offered no evidence that it is. This is why your rants are so tedious. You've got the case law wrong, and you're making personal interpretations which you allege to be the proper and fitting interpretations. Your ranting here is a fine piece of evidence for the contention that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I've skimmed this case. Unless a more careful reading leads me to believe otherwise, I think that it doesn't overturn United States v. Butler.

I don't think any case has overruled United States v. Butler. Other cases may have limited its scope, but a cursory review of citations shows that the Supreme Court is still citing it as a valid precedent.

ican711nm wrote:

I'm looking for a Supreme Court decision that approved the current "ponzi scheme". Perhaps such never occurred.

That's quite likely.

ican711nm wrote:

In that case, I would have to limit my accusation, regarding the unlawfully amending parties, to the Congress and the President, but not the Supreme Court.

Why let the supreme court off the hook? You argued before that Plessy v. Ferguson was an instance of "unlawfully amending the constitution," and Plessy had nothing whatsoever to do with taxes.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

No where in the federal Constitution is its interpretation authorized to vary with circumstance. The promotion of the idea of a "living Constitution" whose interpretation shall vary with exigencies is an invention conjured up by those seeking to bypass the constitutional amendment process specified in its Article V.

So would you agree that the courts should interpret the constitution according to the "original intent" of the framers?

0 Replies

Nowhere in the constitution is a provision made for the courts to interpret the document. That "power" arises from Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison. You really haven't done your homework, Ican't. In fact, this whole exercise is a screed with which you obliquely attack social welfare programs. Although there is no way to do so, i strongly suspect that were it possible, one could demonstrate that your hidden agenda has a racist origin. Just for your information, overwhelmingly, the recipients of welfare payments are white and rural, not black and urban.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

No, Ican't, you allege that this is the case, you have offered no evidence that it is.

Please be more specific about what you disagree with.

Are you requesting evidence that the federal government is transferring money between groups?

Are you requesting evidence that the federal government is taxing dollars of income/revenue differently according to the circumstances within which they have been received?

Or, are you requesting evidence that the federal Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to transfer money between groups, or the power to tax dollars of income/revenue differently?

Setanta wrote:

You've got the case law wrong ...

Yes, I sure did. I am happy and relieved to be wrong about that Supreme Court decision in United States v. Butler (1936). That case actually supports the interpretation of Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph that I provide in my lawsuit.

Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Specifically, the phrase "to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States" does not authorize the federal government to transfer money between groups.

Setanta wrote:

, and you're making personal interpretations which you allege to be the proper and fitting interpretations. Your ranting here is a fine piece of evidence for the contention that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

My knowledge is personal and it is little; perhaps yours is too. My planned next small step (my 3rd step) is to perform complete and valid research of Supreme Court decisions related to my two arguments. One of my working hypotheses is that there exists a post 1936 Supreme Court decision that reverses Butler. It is my sincere hope that my hypothesis is invalid and there exists no such decision. If there is no such decision it will save me a great deal of work in filing and defending my lawsuit.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
In that case, I would have to limit my accusation, regarding the unlawfully amending parties, to the Congress and the President, but not the Supreme Court.

Why let the supreme court off the hook? You argued before that Plessy v. Ferguson was an instance of "unlawfully amending the constitution," and Plessy had nothing whatsoever to do with taxes.

My referent "In that case" was specific to the Social Security's ponzi scheme. If the Court did not actually decide that this ponzi scheme is Constitutional, then I'm compelled to blame the existence of this ponzi scheme, and its implicit unlawful amendment of the federal Constitution, on Congresses and Presidents.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

So would you agree that the courts should interpret the constitution according to the "original intent" of the framers?

Yes!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Nowhere in the constitution is a provision made for the courts to interpret the document. That "power" arises from Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison. You really haven't done your homework...

I disagree! I have done my homework. Perhaps it is you has not done his homework. I claim it arises from Marshall's interpretation of the federal Constitution as written and originally intended.

"Article VI:
...
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; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Please focus your attention on the clauses: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

If Congress and the President make a law not "made in pursuance thereof" (i.e., not constitutional), then it is self-evident that such law is invalid. Who shall declare such law invalid? Answer: "the judges in every state" or the Supreme Court, itself.

"Article III:
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;...

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
... "

There you have it; "appellate jurisdiction". Marshal simply interpreted the federal Constitution as written and originally intended. Yes, some folks at the time didn't follow the logic and disagreed. Such folks were clearly wrong (it can happen to any of us Smile

).

Setanta wrote:

Although there is no way to do so, i strongly suspect that were it possible, one could demonstrate that your hidden agenda has a racist origin

You are right! My agenda, visible and invisible, has a racist origin:THE HUMAN RACE IS ITS ORIGIN!

Some folks think that if they cannot defeat the argument, then they can defeat the arguer.

I suspect that you ..... aaah, the hellwithit!

0 Replies

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know