Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category
by Nicholas Testaccio
In the late 1930’s, Abbott and Costello introduced the nation to a comedic routine that they had performed in Vaudeville. It was a sketch that played on certain words in order to create confusion, but more importantly it gave us enjoyment, pleasure, and a piece of entertainment for the ages.
Today, our elected representatives have turned the English language upside down, around, and around, to confuse and confound the people they supposedly serve. While Abbott and Costello brought us laughter, our servant government brings us derision, turmoil, and angst. There is no upside to allowing government to wander from the strict meaning of the law as set out in the Constitution.
Playing words for an outcome that produces laughter is one thing, but when you twist the legal nomenclature of your founding documents you morph into a society hell bent on self-destruction.
Article IV, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.
The oath binding our representatives to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The Constitution is a written contract produced by “We the People” instructing those we elect or appoint to be our servants. The words are clear, and they were extensively debated by those who took up the responsibility to produce the rule of law, by which this nation should be guided. It does not live in the minds of the foolish, the despots, and the corrupt. It means what it says to the extent, to which we may decide to alter or change its provisions, restrictions, and delegated authorities.
Article V allows for changes by “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof”.
If there are changes to be made then it should be done by the process laid out in the Constitution. For more than One Hundred years, the government comprised of our representatives have made changes that restrict, encumber, and suppress the people those servants are elected to serve. While writing on the provisions set out by the delegates to the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton commented that “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, 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.”.
For more than One Hundred years, a government of the People has operated in a manner “that the servant is above his master”. Prior to the last century the idea of regulating every aspect of the lives of the people who elected them to office was met with stiff resistance. The courts ruled by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d the terms to designate and include”. The terms were not fictions of law, but rather hard and fast rules set out to maintain a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Article IV, § 4 reads in no uncertain terms, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”. Were I to be granted the task of some play on the word “Invasion”, I would consider it to be interpreted by the words for which was originally declared in that an internal force “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”. I see no other way to interpret the promotion of such agencies that enforce the myriad of rules and regulations that not only restrict, but also feast on the labor, production, and property of the populace.
We have “public officials” playing the words of the Constitution to suit their avarice rather than applying them in “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” for instructing “those for whom the instrument was intended”. In no uncertain terms, the rendering of the Constitution into a bastardized document has been promoted by usurpers, tyrants, and to their own foolishness a segment of the population that is functionally illiterate. As comedic was the confusion laid out by Abbot and Costello in their use of “who” and “what”, the reinterpretation of the Constitution into a living document is regrettably tragic. Should I say disastrous, foolish, and ignorant to a level so profoundly deep as to give new meaning to the word idiotic.
“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word is to be regarded as unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Where it states a specific delegated authority or restriction, it is not to be interpreted to mean anything other than what is clearly written. Under Article I, § 8 there are eighteen clauses that constitute the “Powers of Congress”. Under § 9, the Constitution enumerates eight clauses that list the “Powers Denied Congress”. And at § 10 of Article I, the Constitution lists three clauses that detail the “Powers Denied to the States”. So, when the Constitution provides for specifically enumerated powers, or denies certain powers it does not mean to leave room for the laws to go beyond, or in many ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Dr. Miles Bennell here singing, “Great Googamooga, can’t ya hear me talkin’ to ya? It’s a Ball of Confusion. That’s what the world is today.”.
Yes, that is what I awoke with in my head this very morning. I showered, shaved, brushed my teeth, and gargled so that I might look and smell good for my computer. Heck, who else am I doing it for? I am restricted from moving around, going down to the local watering hole, and perhaps imbibing a beer or two with the regulars. If I go anywhere, the fascist mask Nazi’s demand that I must wear a face obliterator to prevent the spread of germs for a virus that doesn’t really appear to be as deadly as they keep promoting.
My head has been in a perpetual state of turmoil as I watch my country torn apart by psychotic, megalomaniac’s, power hungry bigoted sociopaths that occupy both the halls of government and the media.
By the way, it is extremely important to note that those people are chosen to govern by our vote, a process that has now proved that the Founders were correct in setting out parameters for eligibility. What does a person think about when they cast a vote for someone who not only is an incessant liar, but does the exact opposite of what they promise? Top that off with a two party system, and tyranny, turmoil, and dissolution are inevitable.
Onward!
It has been over two months since the election, or whatever else you might call it considering the confusion, and we are headed toward an administration that has promised to hunt down Trump supporters and make them pay. Yes, that has been the rhetoric that has come from that side, and it is most certainly validated by last year’s turmoil in which several cities, including DC, were set ablaze, pillaged, and plundered. Just like the good old days. Wonderful!
I did not hear people condemning the violence then. While video of fires and looters were all over, the media proclaimed it was mostly peaceful, and our newly elected vice-president was proclaiming the virtues of the rioter’s behavior, she was also assisting in their release from jail.
But! But when protesters stormed the capital there was no end to the condemnation by both sides of the aisle. Accusations of sedition and treason were spewed from the leftist media and incoming communist party members. Trump was blamed, again, by his mere existence.
And of course, after a second impeachment, the FBI comes out with the fact that they had received information that the storming of the Capitol was planned. What else is new? It’s not that we don’t already know that the DOJ is thoroughly corrupt and filled with democrat partisans.
For those of you who do not know, Kevin McCarthy played the role of Dr. Miles Bennell in the 1956, original edition of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I have made mention of the character before because I believe, unswervingly, that I am watching the people of this nation, and probably the world being consumed by some sort of entity that does not allow for rational thought.
Follow me now, especially those who are condemning the violence and warning that “they”, the democrats, are coming for our second amendment rights. I may have to wander a bit before I come to my pressing question, but I promise I will arrive at some point. My mind is all over the place right now trying to understand what is taking place.
Mark Levin pointed out that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia the democrats went around the State legislatures by going to the executive and judicial branches in order to affect changes in voting. It is clear as the nose on your face, but since you are wearing that ridiculous mask you may not see your nose. I should also note that the full videos of Levin and two constitutional law professors has been removed from YouTube.
To provide for the selection of the delegates to the Electoral College the U.S. Constitution requires “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” I am not going to discount the Twelfth Amendment, which explicitly explains how the election of a president is to take place. I’m simply going to recommend that you go read it, and hopefully understand that the current process is a corruption of the Electoral College.
In support of the claims that the election was corrupt, I contacted my State representative here in Pennsylvania to advise him of the law. He told me that there was nothing that the legislature can do. I objected, but he told me that their counsel advised them that there was nothing that the legislature could do.
In my quest for truth, justice, and the American way, no I am not Superman, I sent my representative and the leadership the following:
-----I am linking to McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892). Of particular importance, according to SCOTUS comes at 34 & 35 where the Court rules;
-----"The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts *** This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions *** Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated."
-----I hope that McPherson clarifies the fact that the legislature has the ultimate authority to place the electors, and in particular when public officials and courts ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The idiom, “Stupid is as stupid does”, popularized by the film “Forrest Gump” indicates one’s level of ignorance or stupidity. Some definitions grant that it could also indicate one’s level of intelligence but given the fact that the word stupid is emphasized, I am going with the negative.
This is a constitutional Republic as I have noted many times in the past. Yet, we allow the people we send to congress, other public officials, and the media to continually label our nation a democracy. It cannot be a simple mistake because the U.S. Constitution commands that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.
So, is the constant rhetoric about democracy a mistake, a clear violation of the law, or insidious propaganda? Vladimir Lennon is credited with saying that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. That particular mode of propaganda has been used quite effectively over the years. For anyone paying attention, we are deluged with it from the same political bent from which it arose. That is to say that it is a tool of the Marxist, elitist, oligarchs, and mainstream media who are all part of the cabal to overthrow liberty. If you question this, refer to the title because I am almost certain that others besides myself see the same picture.
The Founders of this nation were wary and skeptical as to whether we could keep a Republic. They were students of history, and as Patrick Henry conceded, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”. Given the history gone by, and the character of man, both good and evil, Thomas Jefferson lamented “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”.
It is easy enough to look back at history, and second guess those who lived in some of the most interesting times. We can accuse those who lived in a moment of great importance and question their actions. We can celebrate those who fought for freedom, denounce the evil doers for their wrongs, and learn from the errors that all of mankind makes. Abandoning our history is akin to ignoring that “one lamp by which [our] feet are guided”. That certainly would not be wise for within the dusty pages that comprise our past are the building blocks for a better future.
As astute as the Founders were, they knew that liberty shines brightest when the people, who are for the most part peaceful, have the means to maintain their freedom without the corrosive interference of bureaucrats. Evil doers abound, the murderers, the thieves, the greedy, the power hungry, and the genocidal maniacs do not disappear from the pages of news simply because the law exists to prevent their ambitions. With that in mind, the Framers recognized for the people the tool that they deemed “necessary to the security of a free State”.
It would be simple enough to read the law of the land, and the papers written by those who explained, in detail, what the words meant, and the recognition of the pitfalls that might ensue. Given the predilection of man to be swayed, particularly in today’s world, by silver-tongued viper’s claiming the title of expert, I have little hope that reading every word in the Constitution, and comprehending that it not only must be interpreted by what the Framers understood, it must be enforced as detailed.
I took to writing these articles with the hope that, in their short version, people would take the few minutes needed to read, and gain some understanding of our law. I was prompted to this when I made a statement, years back when debating the application and enforcement of the income tax, that the American people are stupid. I made the claim because the facts are spelled out, and those facts of law are not the same as policies enforced by bureaucrats, and dishonest judges. I was immediately rebutted by another stating that the American people aren’t stupid, they just don’t know. I handed him a stack of papers proving the law as I had claimed, to which he responded, “I haven’t got time to read that shit”, thus validating Forrest Gump’s now famous idiom.
I spend my days reading articles, listening to the opinions of others, and trying to make heads or tails of today’s issues. Sometimes, I am asked to comment on a particularly high-profile case. In many cases, I find that the interpretation does not square with what was opined, ruled, or decreed. I remember the words Paul Simon wrote in “The Boxer”; “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest…”
How poignant when we consider the rule of law, and the Forty-Two Hundred words of the U.S. Constitution. The document requires that every public official of the federal and State governments, be they elected or appointed, swear an oath to protect and defend. In those Forty-Two Hundred words are delegated authorities, and restrictions that “We the People” have made law. Each word must be given its due force as the Constitution must be read in its entirety in order that the rule of law “[o]ne constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”, be interpreted by “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted it underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”.
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning”, and what could be more important to “the Supreme Power *** of the people” than the ultimate authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”?
John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise “To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
From time to time I will pass along, to those on my e-mail list, an article that I have read. Recently, I circulated an article titled “Election 2020: The Worst Case Scenario Is The Most Likely One”. At the end of the article, the author Brandon Smith suggested “community based security” as a means of solving some of the current issues rather than accepting what might come about by embracing more government intervention. I commented to the author that “community based security” is a requirement in that the Constitution commands that we maintain “A well regulated Militia” in order to fulfill the duties imposed at Article I, § 8, Cls. 15 & 16, and Article II, § 2, Cl.1.
In the e-mail I sent to my list, I wrote “I've taken the time to e-mail Mr. Smith inferring that his idea is another term for Militia, and how the Constitution commands it”. Inferring, as the dictionary defines it means “to derive as a conclusion from facts”, “to involve as a normal outcome of thought”, or simply to “indicate”. Why would I make that inference? The Militia Act of 1792 reads as follows, “That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment…” The Militia Act of 1792 was repealed by the Act of 1795 and revised in 1861 to include all able-bodied males.
I have mentioned in at least a few articles that on April 19, 1775, Captain John Parker and 70 Militia mustered on the Green in Lexington as a show against the force of 700 Regulars that Thomas Gage had sent to disarm the militia. That company of Militia did not just appear on the Green. They were required by law to be organized, armed, and trained to fulfill the duty of “citizen soldier” under British law. In the case of Parker’s company, they stood upon the principle that their duty was to stand up against an unlawful act. This belief can be traced back hundreds of years in English law. Instead of “redress of grievance”, the colonists received threats and punishment for their complaints to the crown and parliament. Contrary to the rights secured in the English Bill of Rights, and previous incarnations of guarantees, British regulars marched to disarm the lawful Militia.
As the record shows, someone fired a shot on that day that later became known as “the shot heard round the World”. It was the beginning of a nation conceived in liberty, and the long and arduous path that has brought us to protests, riots, looting, destruction, and the death of many at the hands of those who wish to destroy this nation.
We have been on the path of a fledgling nation to a modern day superpower. Yes, we have made many mistakes along the way, but we strove to correct them. Today we are in the midst of, what I believe is the definition of a civil war. The power structure is not clear, and there are factions that wish to tear us apart. They are doing so by threats and violence. Amid this they are calling for the abolishment of police.
There is no need to dissolve, limit, or defund police departments around the country. What needs to be done seems simple enough to me. By the historical record, “a member of a group of men pledged to take up arms at a minute's notice during and immediately before the American Revolution”, our police can be redefined and restructured to be our modern Minutemen.
What is the difference between a policeman and a minuteman? While minutemen were called to duty, police are there patrolling the streets on a constant basis. Police are armed and organized under the command of the local government. Minutemen were able-bodied men of the community, armed, and trained. In essence, a “community based security” operating under the militia statutes enacted by the State government. Police, on the other hand operate by the edicts of, far too often, unconstitutional acts of the local and State governments.
Let us take some quite simple steps before we place the brave men and women who serve every day into the lawful role “to execute the Laws of the Union”. We admit to ourselves that our idea of “doing something” is akin to doing nothing at all, or even worse when we are doing the wrong thing. I received a question from a so-called pro-2nd group, and for those insulted by the term so-called, the dictionary defines it as “used to show that something or someone is commonly designated by the name or term specified”. Having settled that misconception, I move on to more pertinent issues.
The question referred to the way those who argue for the right to keep and bear arms using the “individual right” theory are wrong because it is not being done by my method. To which I reply, good grief!, why would you do it my way? I simply ask that you do it the way the Framers of the Constitution, those men and women who sacrificed, wrote it into law.
Granted, I have taken the time, several years, to read through the history, the acts, and the laws surrounding the foundation ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The most practical way of preparing for our future is to honor our history. How else can we learn from our mistakes, build on our achievements, and pave the way for a better tomorrow?
There is a contingent of society that is destroying the historical record for some injustice that none of us alive have suffered or committed. We are separated by generations from those who laid out the foundation of this nation with triumph and disaster. By trial and error our Forefathers engineered prosperity for any and all who wish to succeed.
It would appear that we are on the path to a civil war. Not one in which one contingent takes up arms against another. Our cities are being burnt while lawlessness is condoned by politicians. This war will be one of genocide. One in which the looters and rioters are told that they may run roughshod over a peaceful, docile, ambivalent populous that does not seem to understand what is taking place right before their eyes.
While most sleep, and hope for the best, there are those who plot, plan, and encourage mayhem. Some of those planners are the people we elect to our legislatures, or appoint to our courts. They take advantage of any situation that they might escalate far beyond its beginning, and then corrupt or distort the facts to foment anger and hatred. Their goal is the takeover of America either by stealth or violent bloodshed. We are being pushed to an actual civil war.
No, ladies and gentlemen, this will not be a war where competent leaders march trained able-bodied men shouldering their “weapons of war” to engage the enemy. This civil war will be akin to some of the horrific genocides of the Twentieth Century. What should come to mind is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands who had been disarmed by government forces.
For about One Hundred days in 1994 it is estimated that as many as One Million Rwandan’s were killed. The Hutu’s, armed with anything they could use, hunted down and slaughtered thousands of Tutsis every day. It all began by the death of a man, a Hutu, the then president of the country. No one knows who did it, but it was the catalyst for a confrontation that had been brewing for decades between two different groups.
Over several decades, here in America, one faction has used everything in its power to increase racial tension. Not unlike Rwanda, one group is seen as “privileged” while the other group as second class. One man was killed by police on a street in Minneapolis. From there rioting and looting ensued across the nation. Several people have been injured, attacks by one group against the other have escalated, and if truth be told, we are not hearing the actual death toll.
If I were a foolish man I would ignore what has taken place in this country over the last few decades. I would use the term “conspiracy theory” to set aside what some may call coincidence. I would applaud, and even elect those who denigrate “bitter clingers” who want to hold onto their guns, and the sovereign and fundamental right to self-defense. I would work to “infringe” on the rights of those who I might someday be set loose to exterminate.
While the many sleep comfortably, peacefully, and perhaps pray that God might suddenly appear and smite the evil entities that infest our world, there are those of us who live in the real. If we choose to stand by and watch our cities destroyed by vandals, and criminals supported by the very people we elect to enforce our rights, we will deserve every bit of suffering cast upon us.
The Supreme Court has recently denied certiorari to ten petitions stemming from the second amendment. This has been done in the wake of the fact that several States now deny their citizens the right to own, and train with weapons “necessary to the security of a free State” as was intended by the Founders. The right that stems from the Duty that is commanded by the Constitution, and if truth be told, it is the bulwark of sovereignty that the Framers intended when writing the contract.
In, what appears to be an exercise in insanity, we do the same thing over and over expecting different results. Virginia is celebrating their recent gun restrictions by seeing Virginia City ban guns on city property. Rhode Island has completely banned “ghost guns” and have imposed very harsh penalties on those in possession. Amid this, the insane in the pro-2nd community will stick to the strategy that the Supreme Court has rejected once again.
This Fourth of July I will gaze at the spectacle of a nation in turmoil. Cities torn apart, burning, looting, and rioting will be the perverse entertainment while I enjoy a beer, hotdog, or hamburger. Perhaps I will enjoy a second beer and maybe a cigar to top off the day, in which Fifty-Six fallible men signed their own death warrants to form a nation “conceived in liberty”.
Perhaps I will lament the time I served my country and ask for what reason did I sacrifice. Maybe after another beer the anger will rise to question why I’ve spent two decades fighting with government entities for the truth, and why I spent the time trying to educate the ignorant, the ambivalent, and the foolish who would rather we destroy ourselves in the flames of war than to admit that we have lost all connection with the men and women who shed their blood and tears for what was once the greatest nation on Earth. The one country that welcomed millions of immigrants to liberty, prosperity, and justice for all.
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts