federalexpression

This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!

Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

TPA Extension Disapproval Needed Now.

with 3 comments


Let’s Do Away With the TPA!

TPA-Kings-Legislate

Here are 6 reasons why either the House or Senate should pass a TPA extension disapproval resolution (based on William F. Jasper’s article entitled, “7 Reasons Why Trade Promotion Authority/Fast Track Must Be Defeated,” published on TheNewAmerican.com, on June 5, 2015, when the current TPA was being considered by Congress):

  1. TPA is essential to passage of a very dangerous updated NAFTA, the forerunner to an EU-like North American Union (NAU), as well as to the potential passage of other sovereignty-killing “free trade” agreements like TPP, which as of April 12 President Trump is considering rejoining.
  2. TPA is an unconscionable abdication of constitutional responsibility by Congress.
  3. TPA not only hands Trump unconstitutional powers given to Obama, it potentially gives them to his successor as well.
  4. TPA is another giant step in the unconstitutional transfer of congressional authority to the president.
  5. TPA also challenges the Constitution by violating the requirement that treaties be ratified by a super-majority vote of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
  6. The TPA will speed the transfer of immense power to federal and international judges to eviscerate the Constitution; to strike down federal, state, and local laws; and to legislate from the bench

Go here to send emails.

Written by federalexpression

June 13, 2018 at 9:11 am

Pro-Constitution Press Conference in Harrisburg!

with one comment


Press Release

Come out to Harrisburg Thursday, March 29 and support our efforts to keep the Constitution and Bill of rights safe from a Dangerous attempt expose it to a modern Constitutional Convention (Con-Con). Hal Shurtleff, of Camp Constitution, will hold a press conference at which time he will list reasons why every American should be on guard against this fraudulently sold “solution” to what ails America. It’s a solution alright – A final solution to the American problem for the international socialists. Click here or on the image above for a sharable pdf and a copy of the model resolution to cancel all previous calls for a con-con in Pennsylvania.

A recent facebook exchange between a COS Con-con supporter and the COS moderator is very revealing. Take a look at this 3 minute video.

Written by federalexpression

February 23, 2018 at 2:16 pm

Let’s Restore The Electoral College; Not Abolish It.

with 6 comments


Once Again… The solution to what ails America is found in the Constitution. We have tampered with this document way too much. Once again the people, years removed from the alterations responsible for our woes, lack the historical perspective to solve today’s problems in a Constitutional manner. Seeing no constitutional remedy, we have civil unrest and irresponsible behavior instead of academic solutions and real leadership.

Why don’t we all cool down and review the Electoral College as it was designed. Then look at the changes in the process that are responsible for today’s discontent? What follows is a re-published article by Dan Smoot, a past Harvard faculty member and constitution expert. Hopefully, this report will help put into perspective where we need to go with this problem in order to correct the process and protect our Constitutional rights.

dan-smoot

THE DAN SMOOT REPORT


Vol. 12, No. 49 (Broadcast 589) December 5, 1966 Dallas, Texas

ELECTORAL COLLEGE — PART III

Americans generally think of the Founding Fathers as a group of wealthy, periwigged old gentlemen, all of one mind, who met at Philadelphia in 1787 and, after some polite and leisurely conversation, wrote a Constitution.

The 55 men who attended the Constitutional Convention were delegates chosen from 12 of the 13 states. The oldest among them, Benjamin Franklin, was 81. The youngest was Jonathan Dayton, 27. Their average age was 42. They were merchants, lawyers, judges, planters, officials of state governments. Half of them were college graduates. Some were outstanding scholars.

They brought to the Convention an immeasurable wealth of information about governments of ancient and contemporary times; and they represented more diversity of opinion about what the American government should be than is represented in the present Congress.

After almost 4 months of deliberations, they produced the most nearly perfect plan of government ever devised by men – delivering to 18th Century Americans, as a heritage intended for all succeeding generations, what Prime Minister Gladstone called “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.”

Above all else, the Founding Fathers feared excesses of political power. From their vast knowledge of history, they knew that unlimited political power cannot safely be trusted to anyone not to appointed officials of government, not to elected representatives of the people, not to the people themselves. Hence, they devised a system to control political power by dispersing and balancing it so that too much could not be concentrated in any one place.

The power of large states was balanced against that of small ones. Some power was taken from states and given to the federal government; and state governments were given some control over federal power.

The federal government was divided into 3 branches, each with a check on the power of the others; but only one-half of one of the three branches was answerable directly to the people.

State legislatures were given power to choose U. S. Presidents and U. S. Senators, who, in turn, were given power to choose members of the judicial branch of the federal government. Only the House of Representatives, elected by the people, was to be directly answerable to the people. The people’s control over the other two and-one-half branches of the federal government was to be indirect, through their state legislatures.

By thus balancing federal power against state power, and dividing federal power into three branches, each acting as a counterweight upon the others, the Constitution created a federal system in which the people, though retaining ultimate political power over all agents and agencies of government, were themselves protected from demagoguery, mob psychology, corruption, and fraud, which are fatal weaknesses of direct popular government.

The perfection of our federal system was seriously impaired when the 17th Amendment (adopted in 1913) provided for direct popular elections of U. S. Senators. It has been even more seriously impaired by the present method of electing Presidents and Vice Presidents. The method evolved illegally, because state legislators became subservient to political parties, and surrendered to those parties an important responsibility which the Constitution assigns to state legislatures.

As it is used – or abused – the “electoral college” system is a travesty on the elective process. As created by the Constitution, the “electoral college” system is a superb means of electing the two highest officials of the federal government.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution provides:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

On the day chosen by Congress, the Electors cast two votes each, one for President, one for Vice President. To win, a candidate must have a majority of all electoral votes. If no candidate for President has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by state delegations ( 1 vote for each state) elects a President from the three candidates having the most electoral votes. If no candidate for Vice President has a majority, the Senate elects from the three candidates with the most electoral votes.

Each State shall appoint … Electors is an imperative requirement that electors be chosen as agents responsible to state legislatures which, in turn, are responsible to the people; but state legislatures now permit the appointment of electors by irresponsible political bodies (nominating conventions or state committees) , generally dominated by office-holders and office-seekers and their friends.

It is erroneous to say that legislatures abdicated their responsibility in order to give the people the privilege of electing Presidents. They did it to serve the interests of political parties.

The people are given the limited choice of endorsing, indirectly (that is, by voting for electors unknown to the people) , one or the other of the party candidates ; that limited choice is vitiated by political-party catering to organized special-interest groups and by the winner-take-all method of counting electoral votes.

The people have infinitely less control over election of a President in the method now used than in the legal method prescribed by the Constitution.

If you do not like Johnson as President, whom can you hold responsible for his selection? The 43 million anonymous people who cast secret ballots for his electors in 1964? The 1964 Democrat National Convention, a temporary body that went out of existence as soon as Johnson and Humphrey were nominated? If Johnson had been legally elected – by electors appointed by state legislatures – whom could you hold responsible? The men who represent you in your state legislature!

The Constitution gave the people rather effective, indirect control of presidential elections, the framers knowing that direct control by the people is a practical impossibility.

Throughout the vast body of general voters a feeling of hopelessness prevails in every presidential election. What good can one voter do when he is just one among 70 million?

This feeling of fatalistic surrender to the multitude which they cannot influence is one reason why more than half of all qualified Americans never bother to vote in presidential elections. The feeling spills over and dampens voter interest in other elections.

Only a minority of voters participates in presidential elections; but only a fraction of a minority participates in local and state elections. Why? Political power has gravitated to Washington, where most of it is concentrated in the presidency. Millions of voters consider local and state elections petty and perfunctory.

If state legislatures were appointing the agents who choose the President, much of this voter apathy would disappear. Every member of a state legislature would be enormously important. Working for, or against, state legislative candidates in the relatively small home-town districts they represent could have real meaning to a voter. He would not be pitting his individual influence against that of organized voting blocs in some faraway city – would not be dropping his one vote into a pile with 70 million others. He could have a measurable effect in selecting the most important elected officials in the world.

In The Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton explained that the “electoral college” system was devised to guard presidential elections against “cabal, intrigue, and corruption” and against “tumult and disorder.”

Anyone with only a cursory knowledge of the cabal, intrigue, and corruption which are now standard features of presidential nominations anyone who has ever watched the tumult and disorder of a nominating convention – should admire the deep wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Television has made political nominating conventions even worse atrocities than they were before. Now, they are in no sense deliberative bodies. They are rostrums from which demagoguery and cynical appeals to special-interest groups are broadcast to an audience numbering millions.

The Constitution prohibits any “person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States” from having any part in the election of a President. As Hamilton phrased it:
“And they [the people] have excluded from eligibility to this trust [electing a President] all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in Office.”

Yet, political nominating conventions which select our Presidents are dominated by federal office holders. Millions getting money from the federal treasury participate in presidential elections, most of them supporting the presidential candidate whose election will mean continuation of their profit under the United States.

The Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities (1939) prohibits persons in the Executive Branch of the federal government from taking any part in political campaigns. The President and most members of his Cabinet and a multitude of lesser bureaucrats consistently violate this law, the President being the most blatant offender. Remember Johnson’s trip to the Democrat National Convention in 1964 to place Hubert Humphrey’s name in nomination? Remember all of the costly “non-political” swings-around-the-country that every President since Roosevelt has made in every election year?

These illegal, tax-consuming, demagogic practices would be stopped if we reestablished the constitutional system of electing Presidents.

How It Can Be Done
There is a simple, practical way to reestablish the constitutional system – a way advocated for many years by Thomas James Norton (deceased) . Norton discussed the causes and consequences of the present method, and the need for his proposed reform, in Chapter XV of Undermining the Constitution : A History of Lawless Government, published by Devin-Adair, 1951 .

In 1957, John P. Rogge, a Houston, Texas, attorney started a movement for the Norton proposal; but the proposal, though heartily approved by constitutional lawyers all over the country and by many state legislators, never made much headway. It is, however, the only electoral reform that constitutionalists should support.

Norton pointed out something so obvious that it is generally overlooked: namely, that the constitutional system of electing Presidents can be reestablished by state legislatures without a constitutional amendment, and without action by the federal Congress. State legislatures can act one at a time, instantly making the reforms needed in their own states, not being required to act in unison with other states in order to make the reforms general throughout the country – as is the case with constitutional amendments.

Constitutionalists in every state should begin now, persuading state legislators to make whatever changes necessary in state election laws, to guarantee that state legislatures reassume, immediately, their constitutional duty to appoint presidential electors.

That is all that is needed to reactivate the best system possible for electing Presidents of the United States.

This job can be done. In trying to influence national politicians, constitutionalists often find they cannot exert as much influence as liberals can. But, relatively speaking, there is not much competition for the attention of state legislators. Most of them would be enormously impressed by a drive, on the part of their constituents, for their support of a measure which would restore to them a constitutional role of immeasurable importance.

Why It Should Be Done
Envision a presidential election if all state legislatures appointed presidential electors. Political parties could continue to make their own nominations as they please, but the country would not be foredoomed to take one of their nominees. A man who wanted to be President could explain his program and philosophy of government to the 43 electors in New York, to the 3 in Nevada, to the 10 in Alabama, to the 4 in South Dakota, to the 40 in California. The electors would choose the President.

There would still be bribery, corruption, and special interest pressures as now; but illegal or unethical actions could be clearly pinpointed as such. Guilt could be fixed, and guilty persons held accountable, to public opinion if not to a court of law. In 1953, Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not because Warren was qualified for the job, but because he had delivered votes of the California delegation to Eisenhower at the 1952 Republican Convention. Such de facto bribery is now so commonplace that it is almost beyond criticism. In fact, those who criticize the bribery are generally more loudly condemned than those who practice it.

If, however, a presidential candidate bribed a group of electors with government jobs or otherwise, the malodorous act would be a stench in the nostrils of the people; and the people could do something about it. How electors voted would be a matter of public record. If their votes were displeasing to the people of their state, the people could take political action against state legislators who appointed the electors.

This legal system of electing presidents would give the people some control. It would be a gigantic step toward reestablishing states’ rights in the magnificent federal system that our Constitution created.

END

  1. The Electoral College: An archive of Articles (including parts I and II)
  2. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/trashing-the-12th-amendment-with-the-national-popular-vote/
  3. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america/

This post was created with the aid of ocr (optical character recognition) software. It is common for ocr scans to have errors (~2%). Please comment if you see any that I missed.

Written by federalexpression

November 12, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Dan Smoot Report Resource Page

with 4 comments


Broadcast Transcript Dan Smoot Report Title Broadcast Date Run Time
Dan Smoot Report #386 The Fourteenth Amendment 1963-Jan-07 11:53
Dan Smoot Report #387 Kefauver Medicine 1963-Jan-21 11:51
Dan Smoot Report #391 How To Lose Friends 1963-Feb-11 12:03
Dan Smoot Report #396 Kennedy’s Tax Plan 1963-Mar-18 11:48
Dan Smoot Report #398 United Nations 1963-Apr-01 11:54
Dan Smoot Report #400 United Nations in Africa 1963-Apr-15 11:27
Dan Smoot Report #401 Wheat Referendum (1963) 1963-Apr-22 11:52
Dan Smoot Report #403-#405 Disarmament Parts I – III 1963-May-06,13,20 33:12
Dan Smoot Report #406 First Roll Calls (1963) 1963-May-27 11:48
Dan Smoot Report #409 Politcal Action For 1964 1963-Jun-17 11:58
Dan Smoot Report #411 Civil Rights Act of1963 1963-Jul-01 11:44
Dan Smoot Report #414 The Edifice of Liberty 1963-Jul-22 11:41
Dan Smoot Report #415 Confiscating The Land. 1963-Jul-29 11:53
Dan Smoot Report #417 The Power Grid Scheme 1963-Aug-12 11:54
Dan Smoot Report #419 Second Roll Calls (1963) 1963-Aug-26 11:52
Dan Smoot Report #420 Stop Withholding 1963-Sep-02 11:58
Dan Smoot Report #421 Third Roll Calls (1963) 1963-Sep-09 11:56
Dan Smoot Report #423 Reorganizing For Stalemate 1963-Sep-23 11:58
Dan Smoot Report #424 McNamara’s Commissars 1963-Sep-30 11:49
Dan Smoot Report #429 Mr Stevenson Goes To Dallas 1963-Nov-04 12:02
Dan Smoot Report #433 The Assassination 1963-Dec-02 12:06
Dan Smoot Report #434 A Stranger In Their Midst 1963-Dec-09 11:59
Dan Smoot Report #435 The Idle Wind 1963-Dec-23 11:53
Dan Smoot Report #436 Fourth Roll Calls 1963-Dec-30 11:58
Dan Smoot Report #437 Voting Records 1964-Jan-06 11:50
Dan Smoot Report #442 Civil Rights 1964-Feb-10 11:54
Dan Smoot Report #446 Medical Care Through Social Security 1964-Mar-09 11:49
Dan Smoot Report #447 Federal Firearms Legislation 1964-Mar-16 11:24
Dan Smoot Report #449 Johnson’s War On Poverty 1964-Mar-30 11:44
Dan Smoot Report #454 General Of The Army Douglas MacArthur 1964-May-04 11:50
Dan Smoot Report #456 That Hand From Washington 1964-May-18 11:58
Dan Smoot Report #457 Discrimination In Reverse 1964-May-25 11:47
Dan Smoot Report #459 Sonic Booms and Busts 1964-Jun-08 11:48
Dan Smoot Report #460 First Roll Calls 1964 1964-Jun-15 11:47
Dan Smoot Report #461 How They Stand 1964-Jun-22 11:52
Dan Smoot Report #463 Constitution of The United States 1964-Jul-06 10:41
Dan Smoot Report #467 United Nations A Soviet Aparatus 1964-Aug-03 11:47
Dan Smoot Report #469 War and Politics 1964 1964-Aug-17 11:52
Dan Smoot Report #471 The Supreme Court’s Apportionment Decisions 1964-Aug-31 11:54
Dan Smoot Report #472 Politics 1964 1964-Sep-07 11:54
Dan Smoot Report #473 Second Roll Calls (1964) 1964-Sep-14 11:57
Dan Smoot Report #474 The Meaning of Change 1964-Sep-21 11:55
Dan Smoot Report #486 Save The Connelly Reservation 1964-Dec-14 11:53
Dan Smoot Report #514 America’s Promise 1965-Jun-28 11:36
Dan Smoot Report #528 Power Hungry Bureaucrats 1965-Oct-04 11:40
Dan Smoot Report #541 What We Should Do In Vietnam? 1966-Jan-03 11:50
Dan Smoot Report #556 A Republic, Not A Democracy 1966-Apr-18 10:59
Dan Smoot Report #575 Foreign Aid 1966-Aug-29 11:19

I’m looking for more film and transcripts. If you are willing to donate, please leave a comment or click the federalexpression media icon on the top right contact me. My goal is to publish as much Dan Smoot as can be had. Use the form to report broken links.

Written by federalexpression

November 5, 2016 at 2:02 pm

Posted in Constitution, People

Tagged with

Elected Officials Beware: More Article V Convention Lies

with one comment


cos pinnochioThe following is a re-blog: http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2016/02/05/elected-officials-beware-you-better-support-an-article-v-convention-or-you-may-be-accused-of-bribery/

by Bill McNally

An organization founded by Mark Meckler called “Convention of States” has its lobbyists in state houses across the United States promoting an Article V Convention. Their paid lobbyists and supporters have every right to promote one but what they don’t have a right to do is to smear honorable people who oppose one, and that is what they recently did in New Hampshire.

HalRecently, Hal Shurtleff, New England Coordinator for The John Birch Society, was contacted by a friend who shared the following E-mail sent out by the New Hampshire Convention of States:

Good Morning Supporters,

One of the members of the NH State Senate Committee Kevin Avard is now opposing SCR4 due to a donation he recently received for his campaign by the John Birch Society who is against us.  Senator Avard is from District 12 which includes Brookline, Greenville, Hollis, Mason, New Ipswich, Rindge, & Wards 1, 2, & 5 in the City of Nashua.  Make a call and leave a voice message to Senator Avard today at 603-271-4151 and tell him to support SCR4!  Don’t forget to leave your name and the town you are calling from.


Priscilla Mills
Grassroots Coordinator
Convention of States Project

Senator Kevin Avard was informed of this outrageous slander and accusation of bribery and contacted Ms. Mills by email only to receive an arrogant reply to the effect that if he doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t be in politics. Senator Avard then contacted the New Hampshire director of Convention of States, and he went into damage control mode and issued this weak apology:

On behalf of Convention of States Action New Hampshire, I would like to publicly apologize to Senator Avard for the email message that was sent yesterday by our former volunteer Grassroots Coordinator, Priscilla Mills.  The information in the message was inaccurate and I am truly sorry that it was sent. Please disregard it in its entirety.

I believe that Senator Avard continues to seriously consider both sides of SCR4, and I hope that this recent error in judgment by one of our former volunteers will not prevent him from focusing his attention on the critical substance of this issue for our nation.

For the foreseeable future, I will be the only volunteer sending out communications on behalf of COS Action New Hampshire, and I will ensure that no further incorrect information is disseminated.

I sincerely hope that Senator Avard will forgive us and will not hold this error in judgment (made by one volunteer) against our entire statewide or national movement.
Sincerely,

John Therriault
New Hampshire State Director

Mr. Therriault called Ms. Mills smear “inaccurate information”, and her deed simply “an error of judgment.” Hal Shurtleff didn’t agree… “It was not inaccurate information, it was a bold face lie, Shurtleff said, “An error of judgment?” No, it was a hateful attempt to destroy the reputation of an honorable elected official, and the good men and women who make up The John Birch Society.” Readers should note that no apology was forthcoming to members of The John Birch Society. Mr. Shurtleff wanted to make it clear that the sponsor of the resolution calling for an Article V Convention, Senator Gary Daniels of Milford, NH is “an honorable man who has nothing to do with this ugly tactic.” Please note that if wasn’t for Mr. Shurtleff’s friend, this lie would not have been uncovered. It begs the question: How many E-mails of this nature went out to Convention of States supporters that were not detected?

Convention of States has enjoyed the support of many good, decent Americans who are well-meaning. Let us hope that they will do a little research into this group that is only a few years old. May I suggest a visit to this web site for starters:

http://www.livingroomconversations.org

Yours for America’s future,
Bill McNally
7 Blueberry Road
Windham, NH 03087
603-434-9695

Mr. McNally is the host of the radio show “Literacy Matters” heard on WSMN in Nashua on Mondays 9-10am, and the recipient of the NHCCS 2015 Loyalty Award (National Center for Constitutional Studies).

Mr. McNally is a NH Section Leader for The John Birch Society

Written by federalexpression

February 5, 2016 at 5:42 pm

Posted in Con-Con, Constitution

Squash The Con-Con Network

with 3 comments


2016 Promises to be a very active year for Con-Con battles across the United States. The magic number necessary for a Convention call is 34 state applications. As of this writing there are 27 states with an active call on the books. Some of these active calls are very old. Take Pennsylvania for instance; the last active call by Pennsylvania was in 1979 yet the Con-Con advocates want to count that in the total towards the necessary 34. The con-con advocates are leaving nothing to chance, however, as they routinely get newer calls introduced in those states in an effort to update the calls and remediate any potential challenges down the road.

2016-Con-Con-Map

So this is where the battle stands in PA:

#1. :  HR 374  & SR 170, HR 63, HR 378 Are three new pieces of legislation being considered in Pennsylvania during the 2015-2016 legislative session. There may be more so it is important to oppose all resolutions which invoke a “Convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the United States“.

#2: There are 4 Active calls dating back to 1943. That’s right, 1943. There are no end dates on these resolutions so it is impossible to know what the Congress would do with regard to these. It would seem logical that a convention call should require a consensus of current constituents in all 34 states at one-time, however, there are no assurances with regard to this unused process. We’re blazing new ground here.

YEAR RESOLUTION SUBJECT
1943 1943 PA Article V Con- Con application Unconditional Federal Public Funds
1943 1943 PA Article V Con- Con application Repeal of 16th Amendment
1978 1978 PA Article V Con- Con application Right to Life (Vetoed?)
1979 1979 PA Article V Con- Con application Balanced Budget Amendment

This is where membership in a national organization is extremely helpful. You see, if Pennsylvania JBS members concentrate on opposing the con-con network in Pennsylvania, they can be assured that members in the other states will do so as well. This is at least the third iteration of this battle over the last 50 years and the con-con network has failed every time.  The battle must be contested in every state to be sure the magic number 34 is not attained.

Now, the JBS needs the help of concerned citizens of Pennsylvania. Member or not, your freedom hangs in the balance and our success will allow you and your loved-ones to enjoy the protections afforded the American People by the Bill of Rights.

Here’s what needs to be done.

#1. We need to continue to oppose all con-con calls currently under consideration. Here is a letter I penned to accomplish this. Simply download this letter. Change the items in red to personalize it and send it to your local officials and the State Government Committee of the General Assembly and the Senate. Links are provided for easy lookup of those needed to be contacted.

#2. Ask you local representative or senator to have the 4 ancient active calls repealed. Here Is a packet of information to assist you in that endeavor along with a sample resolution, the 4 outstanding calls and sample rescissions in several other states.

#3. Use this petition to urge Pennsylvania Legislators to repeal the 4 ancient and active calls for a con-con: http://libertyactioncenter.com/campaign/56a52dc8-b7d4-4587-ac7e-621a68ed8cac

#4. As a more permanent solution, we should advocate legislation that would require a moratorium clause be included in future resolutions and expire all resolutions not acted upon after 7 years of passage if no moratorium is placed within the resolution. The legislation should act retroactively upon outstanding, dormant resolutions. Having to address resolutions going back to 1943 is asinine. I will be following up on this possibility. Your advice or help in this is appreciated.

Resources:

Here is a pack of documents to help you in the process: “No Con-Con Documentation Packet“.
For more information on this JBS action project go to http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/no-con-con.

Written by federalexpression

January 25, 2016 at 9:21 am

Musket Training at Camp Constitution

with 3 comments


During this year’s fabulous camp, this photo was taken during the musket training provided by “Patriot” Pastor Garrett Lear. Among others, Andrew Affleck, Junior Patriot Camper dressed in colonial uniform, fires a blank round with guidance & instruction by the good Pastor. The lesson included fundamental facts about the concept of a militia, the duty and requirements of those who served, the tools of the trade and inspirational dialog. This was an extremely popular event with the entire camp. Enjoy the video.

Written by federalexpression

July 22, 2015 at 9:09 pm

State Sovereignty: The Roles of the States & the Federal Government

leave a comment »


wordpress-compatible-700pxMonday, June 22, 2015 Presentationwordpress-compatible-100px

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. She is a dynamic speaker and she will share tremendous information and historical facts every American should know.



Watch The Presentation On The FEDERALEXPRESSION Youtube Channel.



Related Links:

  1. KrisAnne Hall’s Liberty First Website
  2. KrisAnne Hall’s Youtube Chanel
  3. Speech Location (Google Maps)
  4. John Birch Society
  5. The New American Magazine

Written by federalexpression

June 25, 2015 at 2:56 pm

State Sovereignty: The Roles of the States & the Federal Government

leave a comment »


Don’t Miss KrisAnne Hall

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor, fired after teaching the Constitution to TEA Party groups – she would not sacrifice liberty for a paycheck. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. She is a dynamic speaker and she will share tremendous information and historical facts every American should know. Click the Image to Download the Flyer !!! or Click Here.

KrisAnne-Hall---State-Sovereignty

Related Links:

  1. KrisAnne Hall’s Liberty First Website
  2. KrisAnne Hall’s Youtube Chanel
  3. Speech Location (Google Maps)
  4. John Birch Society
  5. The New American Magazine

Written by federalexpression

May 17, 2015 at 11:42 am

The historical precedent… a modern Constitutional Convention cannot be constrained

with one comment


The Birth of A New Constitution: The historical precedent which establishes a proof for the claim that a modern Constitutional Convention cannot be constrained.

Scope

Let us set aside for a moment arguments for and against a modern Constitutional Convention. Instead, let’s analyze the reasons why the John Birch Society warns against a probable run-away convention.

Proponents of a Constitutional Convention assure the people that a convention would be limited by the resolutions which empower the meeting and that the ratification of the several states would protect the people from bad amendments. The John Birch Society maintains that the language of the resolutions establishes a convention and its purpose but cannot constrain the power of the delegates who act in a capacity superior to the existing framework of government. They further maintain that the ratification process of the existing governmental framework can also be amended as it is part of the framework that is being modified. The JBS does not reference anything within Article V that supports their assertions, so how do they justify their position? It is justified by an understanding of the historical precedent established in 1787.

I. The concept of a convention: The Sovereign Will of The People

The convention concept is outlined in the Declaration of Independence when it states:

“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

II. The Confederacy

On June 7th, 1776, The Continental Congress issued what is now known as Lee’s Resolution:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.”

This resolution resulted in 1) The Declaration of Independence, 2) The Articles of Confederation and 3) The foreign alliances thought necessary to win the War for Independence.

III. A Plea For A More Perfect Union with Unanimous Consent

The Annapolis Maryland Convention in 1786 resolved that a Constitutional Convention should be called to remedy defects in the Articles of Confederation.

“Under this impression, Your Commissioners, with the most respectful deference, beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction, that it may essentially tend to advance the interests of the union, if the States, by whom they have been respectively delegated, would themselves concur, and use their endeavours to procure the concurrence of the other States, in the appointment of Commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to, by them, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for the same.”

This resolution was submitted to the Congress of the United States along with a letter dated Sept 14, 1786 in the hand of Mr Dickinson. The question of a Convention having been deliberated it was decided in a report on Proceedings in Congress; February 21, 1787

“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.”

IV. A Convention Called

Having the force of a resolution of the Congress, the States in turn, all but one, did appoint delegates to a convention in Philadelphia. This convention later became known as the Constitutional Convention, having derived its name from the fact that its primary fruit was the Constitution that we now discuss.

The references above illustrate that this convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation in order to remedy its defects. Interestingly, one of its defects was considered the ratification process. Let’s look at the ratification clause in the Articles.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. “
Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation

This point is important, because, the ratification clause within the Constitution is held up as a safeguard for a future convention, so this precedent seems to indicate that that is a logical fallacy.

V. A Run Away Convention

Is it fair to classify the Convention of 1787 as a runaway convention? If “runaway” is defined as having exceeded the mandates upon which it was called, yes. If “runaway” is defined as having altered the ratification process, yes. The Convention of 1787 most assuredly was a runaway convention, however, that does not negate its effectiveness nor its legitimacy. It does, however, provide justification for concern and prudence when deliberating the possibility of a second convention today.

Having sited the Articles of Confederation and Congressional resolutions, it is also expedient to list the actual state resolutions which empowered the delegates:

VA: Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 23 November (pdf)

Sect. II. BE it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, That seven Commissioners be appointed by joint ballot of both Houses of Assembly, who, or any three of them, are hereby authorized as Deputies from this Commonwealth, to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorised by other States, to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia, as above recommended, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such an Act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same.

NJ: Resolution Authorizing and Empowering the Delegates, 24 November (pdf)

Resolved, That the Honorable David Brearley, William C. Houston, William Paterson and John Neilson, esquires, commissioners appointed on the part of this state, or any three of them, be, and they hereby are authorized and empowered to meet such commissioners as have been or may be appointed by the other states in the Union at the city of Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on the second Monday in May next, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof.

PA: Act Electing and Empowering Delegates, 30 December (pdf)

Sect. II. Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted by the Representatives of the Freemen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, That Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimons, James Wilson and Governeur Morris, Esquires, are hereby appointed deputies from this state to meet in the convention of the deputies of the respective states of North-America, to be held at the city of Philadelphia, on the second day of the month of May next. And the said Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Jared Ingersoll, Thomas Fitzsimons, James Wilson and Governeur Morris, Esquires, or any four of them are hereby  constituted and appointed deputies from this state, with powers to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorised by the other states to assemble in the said convention at the city aforesaid, and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the foederal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such act or acts for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the

NC: Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 6 January (pdf)

I. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the state of North-Carolina, and by the authority of the same, That five Commissioners be appointed by joint ballot of both Houses of Assembly, who, or any three of them, are hereby authorised as Deputies from this state, to meet at Philadelphia on the first day of May next, then and there to meet and confer with such Deputies as may be appointed by the other states for similar purposes, and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our federal union, and to procure the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect, and that they report such an act to the General Assembly of this state, as when agreed to by them, will effectually provide for the …

DE: Act Electing and Empowering Delegates, 3 February(pdf)

Sect. 1. BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the General Assembly of Delaware, That George Read, Gunning Bedford, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, and Jacob Broom, Esquires, are hereby appointed Deputies from this State to meet in the Convention of the Deputies of other States, to be held at the City of Philadelphia on the Second Day of May next. And the said George Read, Gunning Bedford, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, and Jacob Broom, Esquires, or any Three of them, are hereby constituted and appointed Deputies from this State, with Powers to meet such Deputies as may be appointed and authorized by the other States to assemble in the said Convention at the City aforesaid, and to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of the Union; and in reporting such Act or Acts for that Purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, may effectually provide for the same: So always and provided, that such Alterations, or further Provisions, or any of them, do not extend to that Part of the Fifth Article of the Confederation of the said States, finally ratified on the first Day of March, in the Year One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-one, which declares, that “in determining Questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one Vote.”

GA: Act Electing and Empowering Delegates, 10 February (pdf)

Be it ordained by the Representatives of the Freemen of the State of Georgia, in General  Assembly met, and by the authority of the same, That William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Walton, William Houstoun, and Nathaniel Pendleton, Esquires, be, and they are hereby appointed commissioners, who, or any two or more of them, are hereby authorised as deputies from this state to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorised by other states, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and farther provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union, and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same. In case of the death of any of the said deputies, or of their declining their appointments, the Executive are hereby authorised to supply such vacancies.

NY: Assembly and Senate Authorize Election of Delegates, 26–28 February (pdf)

Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That five delegates be appointed on the part of this state, to meet such delegates as may be appointed on the part of the other states respectively, on the second Monday in May next, at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress, and to the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the several states, render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union; and that in case of such concurrence, the two houses of the legislature will meet, on Thursday next, at such place as the honorable the Senate shall think proper, for the purpose of electing the said delegates, by joint ballot.

MA: Senate Amendment to the House Substitute, 9 March(pdf)

And it is further Resolved, that the Said Delegates on the part of this Commonwealth be, and they are hereby instructed not to acceed to any alterations or additions that may be proposed to be made in the present Articles of Confederation, which may appear to them, not to consist with the true republican Spirit and Genius of the Said Confederation: and particularly that they by no means interfere with the fifth of the Said Articles which provides, “for the annual election of Delegates in Congress, with a power reserved to each State to recal its Delegates, or any of them within the Year & to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year— And which also provides, that no person shall be capable of being a Delegate for more than three years in any term of six years, or being a Delegate shall be capable of holding any Office under the United States for which he or any other for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind”— Ordered that the Secretary serve the aforenamed Delegates, severally, and such others as may hereafter be appointed in their stead with an attested copy of the last foregoing resolve—

SC: Act Authorizing the Election of Delegates, 8 March (pdf)

Be it enacted by the honorable the senate and house of representatives now met and sitting in general assembly, and by the authority of the same, THAT five commissioners … by virtue of this act. shall be and are hereby authorised as deputies from this state. to meet such deputies or commissioners as may be appointed and authorised by other of the united states, to assemble in convention at the city of Philadelphia in the month of May next after passing this act. or as soon thereafter as may be, and to join with such deputies or commissioners, they being duly authorised and impowered in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and provisions as may be thought necessary to render the federal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states, and that the said deputies or commissioners, or a majority of those who shall be present, provided the state be not represented by less than two, do join in reporting such an act to the united states in congress assembled, as when approved and agreed to by them, and duly ratified and confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the exigencies of the union.

CT: Act Electing and Empowering Delegates, 17 May (pdf)

That the Honble William S. Johnson, Roger Sherman & Oliver Ellsworth Esqrs be, and they hereby are, appointed Delegates to attend the sd Convention, and are requested to proceed to the City of Philadelphia for that Purpose, without Delay, and the said Delegates, and in Case of Sickness or Accident, such one or more of them, as shall actually attend the said Convention, is and are hereby authorized and impowered to represent this State therein, & to confer with such Delegates appointed by the several States, for the Purposes mentioned in the sd Act of Congress, that may be present and duly empowered to act in said Convention, and to discuss upon such Alterations and Provisions, agreeable to the general Principles of Republican Government, as they shall think proper, to render the federal Constitution adequate to the Exigencies of Government, and the Preservation of the Union; and they are further directed, pursuant to the said Act of Congress, to report such Alterations and Provisions, as may be agreed to, by a Majority of the united States represented in Convention, to the Congress of the United States, and to the General Assembly of this State.

 MD: Act Electing and Empowering Delegates, 26 May (pdf)

Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the honourable James McHenry, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Francis Mercer, and Luther Martin, Esquires, be appointed and authorised, on behalf of this state, to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorised by any other of the United States to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, for the purpose of revising the federal system, and to join with them in considering such alterations, and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union, and in reporting such an act for that purpose to the United States in congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several states, will effectually provide for the same; and the said deputies, or such of them as shall attend the said convention, shall have full power to represent this state for the purposes aforesaid; and the said deputies are hereby directed to report the proceedings of the said convention, and any act agreed to therein, to the next session of the general assembly of this

NH: Act Electing and Empowering Delegates, 27 June (pdf)

Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in general court convened, that John Langdon, John Pickering, Nicholas Gilman, and Benjamin West Esqrs be, and hereby are, appointed Commissioners; they, or any two of them, are hereby authorized, and impowered, as Deputies from this State to meet at Philadelphia said Convention, or any other place to which the said Convention may be adjourned; for the purposes aforesaid, there to confer with such deputies, as are, or may be appointed by the other States for similar purposes; and with them to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of our federal union; and to procure, and secure, the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect, and to report such an act, to the United States in Congress, as when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same—

RI: REFUSAL TO APPOINT DELEGATES, 15 September 1787 (pdf)

As the Freemen at large here have the Power of electing Delegates to represent them in Congress, we could not consistantly appoint Delegates in a Convention, which might be the means of dissolving the Congress of the Union and having a Congress without a Confederation.

It is clear by the 12 resolutions empowering delegates and the refusal to do so on the part of Rhode Island that the intended purpose of the Convention was to amend the Articles not replace them but Rhode Island certainly saw the possibility of a greater change. It is also clear that the state legislatures fully expected to have an opportunity to approve or reject the plan that would be produced by the convention.

In reality, the state legislatures’ delegation of authority was their last involvement in the process. We read in the new Constitution, a new rule for ratification:

“The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.”

The idea of unanimous consent was abrogated and the several State Legislatures were circumvented in favor of state conventions. Even the argument that the new Constitution was simply an alteration of the Articles of Confederation will not hold water for two reasons: 1) Some of the language in the new Constitution is careful to distinguish between treaties entered into under the Constitution and those entered under the ”Authority of the United States” which draws a distinction and 2) amendments to the Articles of Confederation required “such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State”; a procedure which was not followed.

Conclusion:

A new Constitutional Convention could result in a radically altered or new Constitution. There is no way to limit what will happen in Convention and there is no way to predict the mode of ratification that may arise from a new document. The idea that Congress can be bypassed by a Constitutional Convention is also dubious. Article 1 Section 8 clause 18 of the Constitution empowers Congress”

“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.”

It is reasonable to assume, therefore that Congress will attempt to set the time, location and manner in which a proposed convention would be held. They may also deign to determine the method by which delegates would be appointed, pay for service, and other open-ended issues not specifically outlined within the Constitution. The John Birch Society is correct in its assertions. If you value liberty, you should seek alternative routes to that end. Visit http://jbs.org for their recommended alternatives.

The following youtube video may help you to better understand the issue:

Written by federalexpression

June 24, 2014 at 7:17 pm

%d bloggers like this: