Reference and Useful Info

Monday, February 27, 2017

For All Who Are Clamoring for Constitutional Convention, Forewarned is Forearmed

As George Washington cautioned in his Farewell Address, "to resist the spirit of innovation upon the principles of the Constitution, however specious the pretexts"[1]...OM

Obama blamed Founding Fathers’ ‘structural’ design of Congress for gridlock

"The States in their House (Senate) would be a check on sudden and ill-considered action by the House of the People (House of Representatives).[1]...OM"

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate. (For a so called, Constitutional scholar how little does BH0 know about the history of the Constitution he swore to "...preserve, protect and defend..." The Senate was originally designed to be a House of the States and "...shall be composed of two Senators from each state, CHOSEN by the Legislature there of...Art 1, Sec 3 emasculated by the 17th Amendment[1]...OM)

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population. (The House of Representatives is the HOUSE of the PEOPLE, elected by the PEOPLE as defined in Art 1, Sec 2 of Constitution and the House of Representatives is the people's check on the POTUS. The Senate was suppose to be the STATES check on the POTUS as explained in Federalist 62, "It is recommended by the double advantage favoring a SELECT appointment, and of giving to the STATE GOVERNMENT such an agency in the formation of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as a must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems"...OM)

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. (That is exactly why the Founding Fathers set up Congress consisting of a HOUSE and SENATE because as much as the Socialist stress that America is a DEMOCRACY it isn't, AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC...OM)

The Founding Fathers decided in the “Great Compromise” in 1787 to apportion House seats based on population and give each state two seats in the Senate regardless of population. The solution was a compromise between large states and small states in a dispute that nearly dissolved the Constitutional Convention.

The president also blamed “demographics” for the inability of the Democratic Party to gain more power in Congress, saying Democrats “tend to congregate a little more densely” in cities such as New York and Chicago (Isn't that where most of the welfare handouts go?...OM). He said it gives Republicans disproportional clout in Congress.(Because most who believe in original meaning of the Constitution and hard work usually live outside the Democratic controlled urban areas...OM)

“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,” Mr. Obama said. (Is that why the House turned over in 2010 and MAYBE there will be a turn of the Senate in 2014?...OM)

He also said Democrats suffer from the “congenital disease” of not voting in midterm elections.

Let's turn once more to the Federalist:

"The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and
numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to
be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the  United States, as well as from the history of other nations."

Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32c1xNmwe 

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining The Constitution, A History of a Lawless Government, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1950. (Thomas Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)

2 comments:

  1. I had to retype this because your blog kicked it out. Pain in my ass to have to retype it again.everybody has to have something typed so they can see the truth: You're comparing apples with oranges, Gunny. Your Federalist papers do NOT APPLY TO THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Federalist Papers since 1871 speak of the "defacto law" under the "Capital Act" of that year.

    Yeah, I do know what I'm talking about.

    There are 2 SEPARATE CONSTITUTIONS!!! ONE IS "OF" the people the other is "for"!!!
    One is " defacto/ admiralty/ British-commonwealth/regency law!"
    The other is "COMMON LAW".

    There is one hell of a lot of difference.

    We at the COS Project, have a Convention of States as Plainly defined in The US Constitution, Article V, Section 2!
    It's there, Gunny, go see it.
    I read your offensive. Read my defensive rebuttal of same. Fair is Fair!

    My oldest, now deceased friend, a Survivor of the Chosin Reservoir, told me that one day I'd thank him for learning to put up with hard headed Marine Gunnery Sargents. I preached his funeral. Full military honors. Not one Marine Corps dry eye there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Federalist was written between 1787 - 1788, NOT in 1871, in fact America was in the beginning of a 10 year depression.
      NOW, just which paper speaks of a defacto law & the Capital Act. In fact the Constitution, establishes the the property for D.C. (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 17) All the Capital Act did was allow it to be named for Washington.
      As far as Common law, the founding fathers took that into consideration as they worked on Constitution, try reading the works of Madison.
      What's amazing is you cite the Constitution for one thing, yet believe that common law trumps the Constitution, can't have it both ways, either you believe in and follow the Constitution or you don't, its not a cafeteria, you don't pick & chose.

      Delete