Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FW: Inquisitive Journalism

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    ... From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:29 AM To: James Alan Daum Subject: Inquisitive Journalism Someone
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 5 2:44 PM
      -----Original Message-----
      From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
      Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:29 AM
      To: James Alan Daum
      Subject: Inquisitive Journalism

      Someone on my list has formulated an inquiry. It's good enough that I
      wanted to respond to it and pass it on as an example of governmental
      review. I also keep to my promise to even attack people that I like.
      It begins below with my comments being in fancy brackets ({{{}}}).

      "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT"C

      {{{A copyright mark (C) is one of my devices meaning, in my case, that
      the words don't necessarily mean what you have been told that they mean
      so you just have to THINK.}}}

      Exactly when, where, and how was any precisely titled "Federal
      Government" ordained and established?

      {{{Good point! I noticed at my bank that a very officious poster
      assured everyone that deposits were insured by "The Federal Government"
      which means nothing if such insurer has not been defined. There is no
      mention of "federal" government in the Constitution for the United
      States of America. The eight times the word "government" appears in the
      Constitution for the United States of America it varies from military
      regulations to location of the national capital yet is only specified as
      to be in "republican form" meaning TO ME to be controlled by PEOPLE and
      not icons.}}}

      I find reference to "the federal system of Government..." by Madison,
      May 14, 1787.

      {{{Excerpt needed here! I suppose the "Federalist Papers" might mention
      the term and Madison wrote many of them but I would like to read what
      you have read.}}}

      Is a "system of Government" government itself? If so, what are the
      precise mechanics making it so, and for lawfully titling such with such
      title only describing the system? Historically, was not the term
      federal used in contradistinction to the term national in describing a
      "system of government?" How, precisely, is today's so called "Federal
      Government," indeed "federal," as the term was contemplated and used
      during the Philadelphia Convention? (Not the "Constitutional Convention"
      or the "Federal Convention," but properly, the Philadephia Convention.)

      {{{VERY INTERESTING! How about a separate paragraph or two laying the
      foundation for this fascinating point of history? Are you meaning that
      since it was the Philadelphia Convention
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention> there has never
      been a popular constitutional convention in accordance with the mandated
      ratification plan?

      "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
      for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so
      ratifying the Same." }}}

      Where, precisely, in "...this Constitution for the United States of
      America," the Articles of Confederation, or the Unanimous Decalration,
      is any Title given to an entitied "Government?" Where, exactly, in any
      Law made strictly "in Pursuance of" "...this Constitution for the United
      States of America," as set forth in 1787, is an entity physically
      entitled as "The Government?"

      {{{Trick questions? I am only concerned with three clauses which I take
      to mean ME!

      "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 Office thereof."

      "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
      Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
      Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
      (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
      prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
      speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
      assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      I sincerely believe these words to reserve powers retained by the
      PEOPLE.

      "It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive
      signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly
      founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate
      representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender
      nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular
      reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the
      blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and
      ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a
      better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms
      which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights,
      and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a
      constitution of government." Alexander Hamilton on "Bills of Rights,"
      Federalist 84}}}

      Quote:
      We the People of the United States, [singular, plural?]
      1.in Order to form a more perfect Union, [union of what?]
      2. establish Justice,
      3. insure domestic Tranquility,
      4. provide for the common defense,
      5. promote the general Welfare,
      6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
      do ordain and establish [precise lawful definitions?] this Constitution
      [precise lawful definition?] for the United States of America.
      [singular, plural, either, both? what, precisely, is America, and
      precisely who, and or what is of it?] "All legislative Powers herein
      granted [by whom, and, from within "...this Constitution for the United
      States of America," or from without, and, if from within, what are the
      precise mechanics of that particular action?] shall be vested [by whom,
      and, from within "...this Constitution for the United States of
      America," or from without, and, if from within, what are the precise
      mechanics of that particular action?] in a Congress of the United
      States..." [singular, plural?; The United States?] "The executive
      Power shall be vested [by whom, and, from within "...this Constitution
      for the United States of America," or from without, and, if from within,
      what are the precise mechanics of that particular action?] in a
      President of the United States of America..." [singular, plural, either,
      both?; The United States of America?]

      {{{You have shown me how to ask more difficult questions. I have always
      kept them as simple as the answers. Did you intend to attack every word
      of the Constitution for the United States of America? What kind of a
      document would YOU have written to keep yourself and your descendents
      free?}}}

      "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested, in one
      supreme Court, [by whom, and, from within "...this Constitution for the
      United States of America," or from without, and, if from within, what
      are the precise mechanics of that particular action?] and in such
      inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
      establish." "...shall be...," constitutes action contemplated, or ar
      action accomplished, and by whom, in particular?
      Is the so called Preamble given from within or without "...this
      Constitution for the United States of America?
      If the "judicial Power shall be vested in one supreme Court," were the
      courts of the Judiciary Act of 1789 ordained and established, or were
      they among that which "shall be vested in," and, if so, what are the
      precise mechanics for accomplishing that action?" If the "judicial
      Power shall be vested in one supreme Court," by the time of the passage
      of the Judiciary Act of 1789, would "...shall be vested in one supreme
      Court," be action in contemplation of action of "the Congress" to
      "ordain and establish" "such inferior courts" to the one supreme Court
      in which the "judicial Power shall be vested in?" Where, precisely and
      exactly, in "...this Constitution for the United States of America," is
      the Congress which "shall be vested" with all "legislative powers," or
      any other Power which "shall be vested" given explicit and expressed
      Power to declare, ordain and establish, pass any act, in which any
      "Power shall be vested?" Does Article VI define any such Power, and if
      so, what are the precise mechanics by which it does so? "This
      Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [singular, plural,
      either, both?] which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." Exactly
      when and how did "The Supreme Court of the United States" come into
      existence? Was it, according to the mechanics of "...this Constitution
      for the United States of America," ordained and established by Congress
      "in Pursuance thereof?" How, precisely, did this so titled court usurp
      in any way that explicit and expressed "one supreme Court which
      "judicial Power shall be vested in?"
      If the "judicial Powers shall be vested in one supreme Court," is an
      action contemplated but not particularly actionable? If so, then how
      is motivity and motion by any of the other Powers which "shall be
      vested," to be, or has been accomplished? Did the adoption of "...this
      Constitution for the United States of America," not activate the "shall
      be vested in" to "is," or are we still at "shall be," and in
      contemplation thereof?

      {{{Now you've made me dizzy and my head hurts. The "one supreme Court"
      was not created by men or the Constitution for the United States of
      America. It existed before the Unanimous Declaration and is described
      in that document by reference as a procedure of conscience to a tribunal
      above that of the King and the British Empire.

      When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people
      to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
      and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
      station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a
      decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
      declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.

      To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

      In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in
      the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
      repeated injury.

      WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
      General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
      for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
      of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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; and that as Free and
      Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
      contract Alliance, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and
      Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of
      this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
      Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes,
      and our sacred Honor.

      I will not repeat my beliefs about the ONE SUPREME TRIBUNAL right now
      beyond to say that it is not the United States Supreme Court created by
      the congress and is the court of final jurisdiction superior to that
      statutory assize of wizened professional politicians.}}}

      As far as I can tell, "The Federal Government"C is no more than one of
      any number of vile figures of speech propagated by a gang of filthy,
      lieing, stealing, cheating, murdering, treasonous POLITICIANS.

      {{{Possibly we should come up with the "National Federal Government"
      (NFG) in an age where everyone abbreviates in the USA? Let us
      compromise that the Constitution for the United States of America is the
      GOVERNMENT and that we are the GOVERNORS. (You MAY notice that the
      Constitution for the United States of America does not use this word
      expressly and specifically refers to the "executive" when meaning the
      power of the separate state and THEN in conjunction with "republican
      form of government."

      "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
      Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
      Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
      (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

      I remain convinced of the facts I have presented and of divine
      providence in the rectitude of the intentions of my ancestors.}}}
    • Frog Farmer
      ... From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:05 PM To: James Alan Daum Subject: Re: Inquisitive Journalism On
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 5 2:45 PM
        -----Original Message-----
        From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
        Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 6:05 PM
        To: James Alan Daum
        Subject: Re: Inquisitive Journalism

        On Jun 3, 2007, at 12:29 PM, James Alan Daum wrote:

        "What kind of a document would YOU have written to keep yourself and
        your descendents free?"

        **I liked that question.**

        Honestly, it was more wry cynicism than question...

        **I suspect that I'd have come up with some sort of very undemocratic
        method under which war could only be declared with the consent of 2/3 of
        the parents of the nation and anyone old and young enough to be
        conscripted, followed by legislative concurrence.**

        Our forebears were pretty undemocratic themselves since they represented
        at best an active minority unseating a monarchy that had ruled over the
        colonies for more than one hundred and fifty years. In many respects
        the Constitution for the United States of America is a method for the
        intelligentsia to rule those who cannot rule themselves. The
        Federalists did not favor democrazy.

        "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
        murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit
        suicide." John Adams

        The actual subject we were discussing was "federal government" itself
        but I'm willing to discuss the business of warfare a little. There is
        not now nor has there ever been any right given the congress or the
        executive to draft unwilling people to fight against their will. It was
        reviled and condemned by the colonists so there is little evidence that
        it would be sanctioned by the Constitution for the United States of
        America.

        "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken captive on the high Seas
        to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their
        friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."

        SO...what is the constitutional provision to justify war? There are
        seven clauses for war powers in Section Eight and NOTHING to specify the
        conditions or purpose for it unless it relates to offenses under the
        "Law of Nations."

        "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
        and Offences against the Laws 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"

        NEEDLESS to say, the president cannot constitutionally declare war and
        the rump congress cannot lawfully declare war which leaves only a window
        based on actual invasion.

        **They'd get a vote on it. Screw representative government on such a
        question. The lives of the young men and women of the nation aren't
        theirs to vote on.**

        WHAT "representative government" is that? The senators and house
        members tax and spend in between finding out what we like to do and
        making it illegal since fines are as lucretive as taxes. They are
        representing the REICH and not US.

        Currently the lives of the young men and women who have sold themselves
        into service do belong to the congress. These will be the ones who come
        for you when the nation tears itself apart.

        **Also, failing the ratification of a Peace Treaty with that former
        combative enemy on whom war was so declared, seven years after the
        cessation of hostilities, i.e. armistice or surrender, then Peace would
        be restored automatically by Constitutional mandate forcing the assent
        of the Senate to a very simple treaty: "Peace is hereby restored with
        ________ on whom war was prior declared". Failure of a 100% Senate
        assent would be a capital felony by those refusing. Execution, sans
        trial, based on a mandated subscribed/published vote roster of the
        Senators, could be carried out by anyone with a gun - or hands. Don't
        cringe. We are under martial law once war is declared. Execution, sans
        trial, is a martial concept. No harm, no foul. When the states sent a
        new Senators, if necessary, then we'd get 100% assent, I think.**

        I don't quite understand what you said but I think I might agree with
        you if you're talking about shooting corrupt politicians.

        **That's essentially all I'd do differently.**

        I'm loathe to admit it but cannot respectfully change anything that the
        Constitution for the United States of America states although I would
        relish the opportunity to educate the current crop of bureaucrats in the
        correct meaning of that document even if it requires putting them in a
        position to meet Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and the others vis-�-vis.

        **PS isn't the subject line above redundant?**

        "INQUISITIVE JOURNALISM?" I thought it over and decided that the media
        agents merely disseminate propaganda that has been provided them and do
        not investigate the facts. I have read too many news articles about
        "judicial immunity" and other such hack political dogma to accept
        anything the reporters say with any faith. What happens is that the law
        schools crank out about fifty thousand attorneys every year and only a
        fraction of them enter legal practice. The vast majority of them are
        employed as "legal advisers" to businesses and all the forms of media in
        case some independent publication might actually deign to tell the truth
        about taxes and corruption.

        I'm still wondering about the facts and figures concerning the active
        state of hostilities with Germany somebody had shown me. Does that
        include Japan and Italy too?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.