The Liberty Tree Lantern

Please keep in mind that I want to attend to the Appleseed / RWVA table when I can, however, I am also very involved in all these matters and groups.  I am a reporter for The Liberty Tree Lantern, an assistant organizer working with the Wisconsin GrandSons of Liberty, an active member of Americans for Prosperity, I work with certain “Conservative” State of Wisconsin legislators with Conservative issue legislation, and work with other groups such as our new Marinette/Menominee Sons and Daughters of Liberty “meetup” group.  In addition I am very active as the Marinette county coordinator for We The People Congress who have formed a NEW Continental Congress that will be initially convening in St. Charles, IL on Sunday November 8th, with three delegates from 49 States, for the purpose to plan and execute strategies to enforce Constitutional Law, in its entirety, on all THREE BRANCHES (AND BOTH major political parties) of the Federal Government via peaceful means (hopefully, God willing).

So I will not be able to attend to the RWVA table for a lot of the time, although I would/will be honored to at times that I can.  Friday afternoon will be a good time for me to be at the RWVA / Appleseed table,,,  I think,,,,   If I am not pulled away by other groups or matters of Constitutional discourse.

I am elated that the RWVA / Appleseed will be represented at this potentially historic event of nationally significant importance.  I believe that RWVA / Appleseed is of critical importance to our country and to the preservation of nothing less important than our liberty.  It has always been up to each one of us to remain eternally vigilant and to ENFORCE the laws that we wrote, established and ordained upon our Government as WE THE PEOPLE documented in The Constitution of the United States of America.  And, IF necessary, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism, it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our Constitution, rule of its laws and to provide for our future security.

I look forward to seeing all you Appleseed patriots at our assembly of independent WI Patriot, freedom and liberty organizations.  I hope that any RWVA member who is even remotely interested in pitching in on our Appleseed display table will come.

– Capt. Karl

P.S.:  My 25 year old daughter Traci will be coming. I hope you guys will facilitate her interest in coming to a WI Appleseed. She’s a pretty good shot already, but she’s still a “cook”, if you catch my drift.

From: Paul Jacob

ACORN, a government-funded community activist group long noted for hard-left stances, has been earning more and more notoriety for sundry shady practices.

During the presidential campaign, the organization got in trouble for voter fraud. ACORN officials blamed a few bad apples. But phony registrations filed by its employees have been discovered in a slew of states. In 2008, 14 states began investigating the group for fraud.

Then there’s the ease with which many ACORN employees are willing to advise sex slave traders on how to avoid taxes.

As you no doubt know, in September of this year, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe posed as a prostitute and a pimp at many ACORN offices. They pretended to seek advice on how to avoid paying taxes for income from the child prostitutes they said they were importing into the country. They recorded these visits with a hidden camera, and employees in all too many offices proved eager to help. ACORN responded by firing implicated employees . . . and suing Giles and O’Keefe.

Now it is coming to light that — to save money — ACORN bosses have been telling paid employees to work for them as volunteers, instead, and earn their pay by collecting unemployment insurance. This, as blogger Michael McCray notes, would be a form of fraud.

A fraud to match other ACORN policies, I guess, and the handout mentality that permeates our nation’s capital.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Bank-connected congressman blamed for undermining bill

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has complained that the bill he sponsored calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve has been “gutted” by congressional committee, pointing specifically to a legislator whose campaign coffers have been boosted by the banking industry.

As WND reported, Paul sponsored H.R. 1207, a bill requiring the Federal Reserve – an organization that’s independent from the U.S. government but nonetheless oversees U.S. monetary policy – be opened to oversight by Congress. The plan compiled over 300 co-sponsors in the House before being sent to committee.

But in a telephone interview with a Bloomberg reporter, Paul said the teeth have been ripped out of the bill.

“There’s nothing left; it’s been gutted,” Paul said. “This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”

Paul told Bloomberg the bill has been stripped of provisions that closed loopholes protecting the Fed, including exemption from audits of transactions with foreign central banks and protected communications between the Board, reserve banks and staff.

 Demand the money managers come clean by signing the petition in support of an audit of the Federal Reserve now!

Paul blamed the chairman of the House Financial Service Committee’s panel on domestic monetary policy, Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., for eliminating “just about everything” in preparation for the bill’s consideration on the floor of the House.

 Watt, is has also been revealed, has significant connections to the banking industry.

It its report, Bloomberg mentioned that Watt’s congressional district includes Charlotte, headquarters of Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender.

Further investigation through OpenSecrets.org reveals that the largest share of Watt’s campaign contributions in the 2008 election cycle came from the finance, insurance and real estate industries.

Breakdown of industries supporting Rep. Mel Watt’s 2008 campaign (graph from OpenSecrets.org)

In fact, of $609,072 given to Watt, $217,109 – or 35.6 percent – came from the money sector, including over $187,000 – or nearly 31 percent of his total contributions – from political action committees within the finance , insurance and real estate industry. The next highest industry supporting Watt was labor, which contributed only 14 percent of his total war chest.

Furthermore, the four largest contributors to Watt’s cause were Bank of America, Wachovia Corp., American Express and the American Bankers Association.

Keith Kelly, a spokesman for Watt, declined to comment and told Bloomberg Watt wasn’t immediately available for an interview.

Paul, however, told Bloomberg he intends to introduce an amendment that would restore the bill’s legislation to its original language when it comes to the House floor for a vote.

Paul long has been a critic of the secrecy of the Federal Reserve.

“Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar,” he said earlier. “Since 1913, the dollar has lost over 95 percent of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy.”

You’ve never needed to understand money like you need to understand it now! “Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free” unravels the deception of the Federal Reserve and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading.

“Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations,” Paul said when the plan to audit the Fed was introduced. “While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.”

Ron Paul’s ‘End the Fed’: What we need to do to fix America’s economic policy for future generations

Paul has warned, “The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed’s negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.”

WND previously reported that the Fed, despite being ordered to disclose to whom it awarded some $2 trillion in discount “stimulus” loans, continues its fight for secrecy.

Sign the petition in support of an audit of the Federal Reserve now!

Ron Paul’s ‘End the Fed’: What we need to do to fix America’s economic policy for future generations

“The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”

“The Fed: Fraud of the Century” – Unconstitutional cartel literally creates problems it was supposed to prevent

“Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free”

“$700 Billion Bailout”: What it means to you, your money, your mortgage and your taxes

“Bailout: What the Rescue of Bear Stearns and the Credit Crisis Mean for Your Investments”

“Bailout Nation: How Easy Money Corrupted Wall Street and Shook the World Economy”

“Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis”

“Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World” (book)

“Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse”

Stop the bailout! Magnetic bumper sticker

Surviving economic meltdown in the age of Obama

Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but

I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn\’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30’s then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.

I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country\’s foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country\’s economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations.
I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.

I called mine “A People’s Campaign” and that sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.

I knew that, if I merely offered the people ‘hope’ , together we could change our country and the world.

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include “persecuted minorities” like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation’s leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.

I\’m glad they didn’t. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.

Who am I?

ADOLF HITLER OF COURSE

WERE YOU THINKING OF SOMEONE ELSE ?

Let me get this straight.

We’re going to pass a health care plan
written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it,
signed by a president that also hasn’t read it, and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t  pay his taxes,
overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that’s nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

The specified powers of the Constitution, in their own words –

I was reading through the Journal that was kept by James Madison as a record of the Federal Constitutional Convention in 1787. This Journal is the most complete, and the most definitive record, of the proceedings, the debates, and the votes that were taken, while the delegates from the thirteen States were writng the US Constitution. (Note 1 below) The Journal was later ordered to be printed and published by an Act of Congress.

I’ve copied a page from Madison’s Journal below. On Sept.14,1787 they were proposing to add the power to “cut canals” to the specified powers that Congress has. They discussed their reasons for and against granting Congress the power to “cut canals”, but as you can see, in the end they voted to not extend that new power to Congress. (page 725 of the “Journal of the Federal Convention”)

They voted down this ‘new proposed power’ to cut canals – they did not allow it – they did not give that authority to the federal government. But, regardless of what this ‘particular proposed power’ was, the fact that they specified some powers and voted down other powers says it all. We undeniably have a Constitution expressly designed to limit the federal government to the specified enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. (Note 2 below)

Any person could read this one page of Madison’s Journal and not have to go any further to realize that there can be no debate — there is no argument that can be put forth that Congress has some sort of an ever elastic, ever expanding, ever more supreme authority to legislate on any subject that strikes their fancy.

They would not have debated about, voted for, and then specified only some powers, if they actually intended to grant unlimited powers. They would simply have said that Congress can pass any legislation that they wish in order to advance the “general welfare”. They did not, they merely granted Congress the power to “collect taxes” to advance the “general welfare”, with that “general welfare” being limited to the specified powers that followed. (Note 2 below)

There is line after line, page after page, statement after statement, from these representatives of their respective States as they wrote our Constitution. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to chain our public officials to a strict and clearly delineated set of rules and tasks within very narrow and specific boundaries. (Note 2 below)

The Constitution is a very explicit and easily understood document. It is not necessary to interpret the Constitution. The founders of this Country wrote down exactly what they meant when they composed it. If you ignore, reinterpret, or disregard any one part of it, then you ignore it in its entirety. You subvert the very reason for having a written Constitution. Anyone who oversteps these boundaries is not authorized to do so.

As Mr. Mason put it while discussing another power of Congress in Article 1, Section 8, “Congress would not have the power unless it were expressed” in the Constitution. (page 542 of the “Journal of the Federal Convention”)

Mr. Madison further stated on the U.S. House floor, February 7, 1792., “I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived—that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms (to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare) prefixed to the specified powers—but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms. “

“The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine (of implied open ended general welfare powers) in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted.”

“In short, sir, without going farther into the subject, which I should not have here touched at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.” (James Madison, Speech on the U.S. House floor, 07 February 1792. Quote in: Jonathan Elliot, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 4, p.428-429)

In his Farewell Address on September 17 of 1796, George Washington stated that “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

———————————————————————————————————————

Records of the Federal Convention

Published Under Direction Of The United States Government

From The Original Manuscripts.

Reprinted 1895 Albert, Scott, Chicago, Page 725

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7

[2:615; Madison, 14 Sept. 1787]

Doctor Franklin moved to add after the words “post roads” Article I Sect. 8. “a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary”.

Mr Wilson seconded the motion.

Mr Sherman objected. The expense in such cases will fall on the United States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.

Mr Wilson. Instead of being an expense to the U. S. they may be made a source of revenue.

Mr. Madison suggested an enlargement of the motion, into a power “to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the United States might require, and the legislative provisions of individual States may be incompetent”. His primary object was however to secure an easy communication between the States, which the free intercourse now to be opened seemed to call for. The political obstacles being removed, a removal of the natural ones as far as possible ought to follow.

Mr. Randolph seconded the proposition.

Mr King thought the power unneccessary.

Mr Wilson. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing the general welfare.

Mr King — The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a bank, which has been a subject of contention in those cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.

Mr. Wilson mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals the communication with the Western Settlements. As to Banks he did not think with Mr. King that the power in that point of view would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies they are already included in the power to regulate trade.

Col: Mason was for limiting the power to the single case of Canals. He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by Mr. Wilson.

The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question specifying & limited to the case of canals.

New Hampshire — Massachusetts — Connecticut — New Jersey– Delaware –Maryland — North Carolina — South Carolina — no

Georgia — Pennsylvania — Virgina — aye [ Ayes--3; noes--8. ] The motion was not agreed to.

———————————————————————————————————————

Note 1 —– James Madison was dertermined to — “preserve as far as I could an exact account of what might pass in the Convention”. If the convention succeeded in drafting a new constitution and if that proposal were adopted by the American people, Madison felt that his record of what happened in the convention would allow future generations to understand “the objects, the opinions & the reasonings” that gave rise to the new Constitution. Madison, like many others of his generation, believed that Americans had the responsibility of constitution making not merely for themselves and their posterity but for all of mankind. His record of the Constitutional Convention would help future historians from all countries understand the philosophical and practical motivations of the delegates.

The Convention chose William Jackson as its secretary. Madison correctly sensed that Jackson would preserve only a skeletal record of the proceedings. Thus, with the tacit approval of the delegates, Madison separated himself from the Virginia delegation and sat instead in “a seat in front of the presiding member, with the other members on my right & left hands. In this favorable position for hearing all that passed, I noted . . . what was read from the Chair or spoken by the members”.

Madison was already an accomplished note taker of debates, having practiced and refined his skill in Congress. The scholarly Virginian had a knack for isolating the essentials of the argument while listing the supporting evidence given by each speaker. He explained that he “was not a little aided by practice & by a familiarity with the style and the train of observation & reasoning which characterized the principal speakers”. He never missed a day of the convention, nor at most “a cassual fraction of an hour in any day, so that I could not have lost a single speech, unless a very short one”. He wrote his notes in full words, symbols, and abbreviations. On occasion speakers also gave him written copies of their speeches and, naturally, he had whatever written text he prepared for the more than two hundred times he spoke in the convention. Each evening he expanded these rough notes. Later, after 1789, he copied William Jackson’s manuscript proceedings of the convention, which contained the exact wording of motions and resolutions as well as the votes on these measures and correlated those to his in order to have as complete a record of the proceedings as was possible. Given the importance of the Constitution in our lives today, Madison’s notes have become invaluable for an understanding of the original meaning of the Founders.

———————————————————————————————————————

Note 2 —– Below are listed the specifically enumerated POWERS of CONGRESS as mentioned by James Madison above, and as copied directly from Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The actual powers of Congress are in bold print. All other powers and rights, not expressly delegated to Congress by the Constitution, are reserved to THE STATES or to THE PEOPLE ( see the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution ).

Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

———————————————————————————————————————

Thomas Paine, the great revolutionary-era writer — the author of ‘Common Sense’ — wrote,

A constitution is the act of the people in their original character of sovereignty. A government is a creature of the constitution; it is produced and brought into existence by it. A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates. It therefore follows, as a natural and also a logical result, that the governmental exercise of any power not authorized by the constitution is an assumed power, and therefore illegal.

 Folks,  The usurping tyrants that have caused America to be on a trajectory toward economic oblivion as the result of incremental usurpation leading to tyranny and beyond, to absolute despotism is the result of the Congressional scofflaws altering the spirit and intent of The Constitution with particular and total distortion of the term “General Welfare” in Article 1 Section 8.

Every American MUST come to understand what was NOT meant by the term “General Welfare”; so that we can get our country, our individual unalienable rights, freedom, liberty, and prosperity back through strict application of Law as we wrote established and ordained upon the US Government.  We established our Government by our individual authority, which we ‘borrowed’ it for the privilege of letting them, our servants, handle only EIGHTEEN listed items in Article 1 Section 8 by the authority that we were bestowed by our creator.  See: The Declaration of Independence

by Colonel Dan

The Cowboy Chronicle, Sept 2007

Anyone that’s followed this column for more than a few months knows how I feel about our government’s disregard of the Constitution so there’s no need to rehash that. The question I’m asked regularly however revolves around the basis on which Congress justifies the expansion of all this power—spending and otherwise. My response is always short and to the point—they just arrogantly ignore the Constitution with impunity.

Question: When confronted by the indisputable facts, what excuse do those in Washington use to justify actions that factually exceed enumerated constitutional limits? Answer: They hide behind that ubiquitous General Welfare Clause. And what is the General Welfare Clause?

Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Now we’ve argued about the definition of this for over 200 years in the courts, in the congress and on the streets and you can reference almost any opinion you like because most will seek out the interpretation that justifies their action. Given the difference of opinion over the years, whose opinion really counts? Whose view is definitive? Speaking as a simple solider, I’d say it would be the folks that wrote the original document even more so than the subsequent courts that bastardized it.

What did the Founders really mean? After all, they’re the ones that can actually answer questions first hand concerning original meaning/intent and not be speculative or twisted politically by the passage of time wouldn’t you think?

OK, let’s see what they had to say and put this question to rest. Let’s ask James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Could they possibly shed any light on this?

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.

From the proverbial horses mouths to your own eyes — the all-encompassing General Welfare Clause is not as all encompassing as our current “leaders” would have us believe. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Federal government rather it pertains only to those enumerated powers that can and ought to be applied universally and in general to the several states.

Now compare what you just read above from the Founders themselves to a Supreme Court ruling in 1976 in Buckley vs Valeo.

“(the General Welfare clause is) a grant of power, the scope of which is quite expansive, particularly in view of the enlargement of power by the Necessary and Proper Clause …. It is for Congress to declare which expenditures will promote the general welfare… Whether the chosen means appear “bad” or “unwise” or “unworkable” is to us irrelevant; Congress has concluded that the means are “necessary and proper” to promote the general welfare, and we thus decline to find this legislation without the grant of power in Art. I Sec. 8.” Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 US 1, 90-91 emphasis added.

Important note: What was omitted from the necessary and proper clause referenced in the ruling above was the rest of that original clause of Section I Article 8 which states, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [foregoing = those specifically enumerated] and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” “Vested by this Constitution…” is key — again, authority that is necessary and proper for the general welfare which pertains only to the powers enumerated by the Constitution.

As a very learned judge, who is a good friend of mine, interpreted this 1976 Supreme Court view some 200 years removed from the Founders, ” — `it [the general welfare clause] means just what I choose it to mean.”

If today it does mean “just what I choose it to mean”, then the Court and Congress have set themselves above the Constitution and it no longer serves as America’s anchor of freedom, justice and law but has degenerated into that “living, breathing document” whose meaning can change routinely, blown along by prevailing political winds. This was NOT the original intent, not if we truly believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that no man is above the law. As that favorite judge of mine put it, “Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” subject to reinvention according to the political whims of the moment is not just bad policy. It is a suicide pact.”

So you see what 200 years of bastardization, twisting and manipulation in the name of political power grabbing can do to the Founder’s inspired work! It’s both sickening and infuriating.

Just the authoritative view from our Founder’s saddles along side the distorted one of our Washington politicos some 200 years later.

Problem Solved!  – - Capt. Karl

Regulatory Commissars: Oil Off Limits for Thriving Bears

Believing themselves to be smarter than the average bear, bureaucrats in the Obama administration continue their quest to create a, well, bear market — at least for oil. The White House decided to designate more than 200,000 square miles of Alaskan land and coastline as “critical habitat” for polar bears — the same bear population that has reached greater numbers than previously recorded in history. In fact, despite what Al Gore and his fellow global warmists would have us believe, the population has actually risen by 40 percent since 1974.

This new non-endangered species habitat is enormous enough to qualify as the third largest state in the union, placing it between Texas and California in terms of square miles. Former UnitedHealth general counsel and now Assistant Interior Secretary Tom Strickland claimed at a news conference that the greatest threat to the bear is Arctic ice melt and that “we will continue to work to protect the polar bear and its fragile environment.”

However, the new designation as a critical habitat is the first step in requiring even more government consideration of the supposed negative effect on the escalating polar bear numbers before allowing oil and gas development. The state of Alaska responded by filing a complaint in an effort to stop the listing under the Endangered Species Act.

In the meantime, some 30 percent of the world’s gas supplies and 4 percent of the estimated global oil supply will be placed off limits because of this deceitful claim that the polar bear population is endangered. Next up, the loggerhead turtle, which, if listed as endangered, would bring regulations on everything along the eastern seaboard, including what lights you can put on the ocean-facing side of your house.

Here are some more reasons:

• CNSNews.com – Interior Secretary Wants Probe of Bush …

Obama Administration Blocking Domestic Oil Leases

Posted by nationalforestlawblog at 09:06 PM on October 08, 2009

BORN IN THE USA?

Plaintiffs promise appeal of ruling protecting Obama

Posted: October 29, 2009
2:02 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 

A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama’s eligibility to be president citing the “birth certificate from the state of Hawaii” that apparently refers to an Internet image of a “Certification of Live Birth” released during Obama’s campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from eligibility challenges.

A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers after it listed Siddarth Velamoor as one of the newest law clerks for Carter – who today released his ruling dismissing the complaint in the Barnett v. Obama case in the Central District, Southern Division Court in Santa Ana, Calif.

Velamoor is also listed in the Martindale lawyer database as an associate of international law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama’s Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

As WND has reported, Federal Election Commission records for “Obama for America” show that the lobby organization has paid Perkins Coie $1,666,397.01 since the 2008 election.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed immediately that his clients – two of about four dozen in the case – would be filing an appeal. California attorney Orly Taitz, representing the rest of the clients, also promised not only an appeal of the decision but of future cases that will be filed.

“This [opinion] looks like it was written by the defense,” she told WND.

She described the fight against Obama as “very tough.”

“He has more power than anybody, unlimited financial resources, and a lot to hide,” she said.

“Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the president was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be president,” Carter wrote.

However, Obama’s long-form original birth certificate has remained under seal. The image posted by his campaign on the Internet is a different document, a “Certification of Live Birth,” that apparently is computer generated and has been challenged by a number of critics over its authenticity.

In fact, the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth” has been a focal point of numerous court challenges to Obama’s eligibility, and Taitz earlier submitted to Carter a copy of what purported to be a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, asking for permission to verify its authenticity.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

 

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Carter’s dismissal revolved around his determination that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to bring the complaint, including those plaintiffs who were third-party candidates in the 2008 presidential election.

“The court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election,” he said.

He warned, “Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the court to pass judgment that plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference.

“This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results,” he said.

But he also said once Obama was sworn into office on Jan. 20, the question no longer was over a potentially ineligible candidate but of the removal of a sitting president.

Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, hours before the complaint was filed. However, Obama also took the oath of office the next day, on Jan. 21, after the complaint was filed, because he stumbled over the words during the Jan. 20 event.

“In order to cure plaintiffs’ perceived injury, the court would need to wade deep into the waters of the president’s official duties – in fact, it would have to declare that the president could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave,” Carter wrote.

He also cited the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution’s assignment of the power of impeaching a sitting president to Congress.

Carter cited Kreep’s arguments that Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for president.

“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became president of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.”

WND reported several days ago on a separate challenge to Obama’s eligibility that also was taken to the appellate level.