The Federalist #51 Full Text

For Mr. K, our resident Constitutionalist, here is the full text of James Madison's Federalist 51:

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

To the People of the State of New York:

TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combination of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

From Constitution.org

Bookmark our site!

Consider advertising on our site!

Obama College Thesis: 'Constitution is Inherently Flawed'

Obama Thesis Raises Doubts
Brian Lancaster

RELATED: Zodiac Killer case solved after 40 years.

President Barack Obama's college record has officially been under strict secrecy since his run for the White House began in 2007. This record includes two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles, two years at Columbia University, and finally at Harvard Law School.

-- Please donate to Soldiers' Angels--

During his time at these colleges, Obama gained notoriety for being an especially bright and hardworking student. At Harvard, he was later elected as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, which many observers see as the beginning of his political career.

However, many things regarding the future President's time at these colleges have remained private. Under order of the Obama campaign, all information not directly allowed published by Obama himself, is not to be disclosed to any media. These included grades, attendance records, rewards received, and papers submitted.

With all of the secrecy regarding the President's academic record, famed Time reporter Joe Klein looked into the records for an upcoming special edition about the President. Klein included several key points in the piece, including his grades and stellar letters of recommendation. However, what has leaked along with this information was the subject of a thesis written by the young Obama while still an undergraduate at Columbia.

A political science major, Obama was seen as a top student, according to his classmates. Professors even asked the young student to lecture several times. Obama was required to write a 'senior seminar' paper in order to graduate from Columbia. The subject of this paper, which totaled 44 pages, was American government. Entitled Aristocracy Reborn, this paper chronicled the long struggle of the working class against, as Obama put it, "plutocratic thugs with one hand on the money and the other on the government."

In the paper, in which only the first ten pages were given to the general media, Obama decries the plight of the poor: "I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh."

In part, the future President blames this on the current economic system: "There are many who will defend the 'free market.' But who will defend the single mother of four working three jobs. When a system is allowed to be free at the expense of its citizens, then it is tyranny."

However, the President also singled out the American Constitution: "... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

It is yet unknown if more of this thesis will be released. It was also noted that the President received an A- for the paper, which later led to his graduation.

Remember to bookmark our site!
Consider advertising on our site!

Merry Independence Day

Hey All,

I would like to please wish all of our readers and all Americans a very merry Fourth of July. We're now 233 years old, and still looking pretty good.

To our Constitution and our spirit we our our freedoms and our liberties. To our military we owe so much. We must try and have faith in our government and go forward together, making sure that we leave the world better than we found it.

With all of the troubles around the world, we must remember that we are Americans, ready to help; free and independent.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Interview: Darrell Castle: VP Candidate for the Constitution Party in 2008

We are very fortunate to continue our interview series with our seventh individual. Darrell Castle is the Vice-Chair of the national Constitution Party, a party dedicated to a stricter reading of our founding document.In 2008, Mr. Castle was the Constitution Party's candidate for Vice President of the United States. He served our country in Viet Nam in the United States Marine Corps. He believes that Congress holds the sole power to declare war.

Mr. Castle is an attorney in private practice with firms in Memphis, TN, St. Louis, MO, and Kansas City, MO. The Castle Law Firms specialize in Bankruptcy and Personal Injury. Mr. Castle earned a JD in 1979.

Mr. Castle has served the local church as deacon and deacon chairman. In 1998, he and wife Joan founded Mia’s Children Foundation, Inc. (www.miaschildren.org), a Christian mission in Bucharest, Romania which ministers to homeless gypsy children.

Mr. Castle and his wife Joan have been married for 31 years and live in Germantown, TN. Their daughter Joanna and her husband Michael Miller serve with the Navigators Ministry at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

So without further ado:

1. What is the biggest issue affecting Americans today and how would you deal with it?

The biggest issue facing Americans today is whether we will remain a free and independent people able to govern ourselves and decide our own destiny and that of our children or whether we will be ruled by a tiny elite who will decide those things for us. This question was asked by Thomas Jefferson more than 200 years ago and it is more at issue today than it was in Jefferson’s day. I would return to Constitutional government and the rule of law. The Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land (Article 6, paragraph 2) and it should be respected as such by elected officials who take an oath to honor and defend it. The United States should avoid sovereignty destroying ideas such as the North American Union which proposes to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada into one regional organization similar to the European Union. We should secure our borders and enforce immigration laws, withdraw from so called free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and WTO which serve the interests of foreign governments and international mega corporations rather than the American people. We should adopt a foreign policy of strict neutrality with all nations.

2. What grade would you give President Obama’s first 100 days and why?

I would give him an A on his returning some degree of dignity and restraint to the office of the President but his overall grade is an F. His first 100 days have been very disappointing because he came to the office with such potential to do great things of a positive nature.

His approach to our economic problems is a strictly Keynesian one which will not work and in fact will make the situation worse. Instead of leading us back to a sound money system he appointed the very people who caused the economic breakdown to lead us out of it. As a result, the American people are committed to 13 trillion dollars in bailout money and for what? The answer apparently is so that Wall Street gamblers will not get what they deserve. This will condemn generations of Americans to poverty and destroy the retirement incomes of millions of Americans. GRADE F

He led the American people to believe that he would restore the Bill of Rights and end the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and other such legislation, but he has not. He promised that he would restore habeas corpus and he has not. He stated that he would end CIA secret prisons, but he simply transferred them to a different location. His deeds do not match his words. GRADE F

He led us to believe that he would end the war in Iraq. Instead, he now intends to leave up to 50,000 troops there permanently and those being withdrawn are going to Afghanistan. He has spread the Afghanistan war into Pakistan, a nuclear armed country. GRADE F.

He refuses to secure our borders and such refusal is a clear violation of the Constitution (Article 4 section 4) and a violation of the first duty of the President which is to defend America and repel invasion. He now proposes amnesty for those not legally in America. He blames the American people for the drug wars in Mexico and he does these things despite having declared a state of national emergency due to the flu epidemic in Mexico. GRADE F

I could go on, but his overall grade is F. For what it’s worth George W. Bush’s overall grade is an "F-" because of the above reasons, as well as his starting both wars, and his making America a morally corrupt torture nation.

3. What is the biggest threat to our Constitution?

My answer to question one also applies to this question. In addition, the assumption of power by the executive branch is a Constitution destroying trend that if not reversed will result in an elected dictator. The Constitution is not self enforcing and the people have been unwilling to hold the Democrat and Republican office holders responsible for their degradation of Constitutional government.

4. Why do you feel that Americans are often uninvolved with politics?

People have lost their understanding of the American system of government and what it takes to keep it intact. Most lives revolve around the necessities of life such as work and families. In addition, many people are obsessed with entertainment such as sports and by the idea of celebrity in general. These things result from 60 years of failed public education which is evidenced by a high school drop out rate of 50% and from consolidated corporate control of the media which refuses to broadcast or print the truth.

5. Why would your platform help transform American policy for the better?

It would restore America to peace, prosperity, and liberty. The rule of law would apply to those in government as well as to the rest of us. Americans would be safe without surveillance and without the militarized police state we are building. We would have a sound money system. A monetary system free of the Federal Reserve debt based credit system that currently controls our economy. This would allow people to have security in retirement without erosion of their savings by inflation. Our people would be secure from the requirement of unnecessary foreign wars. The borders would be secured which would allow us to eradicate many diseases imported from the third world by people coming to America illegally. The income tax would be abolished and the government would be funded by a low, non-punitive import tariff. There would be an economic boom such as we have yet to experience including technological and innovative advances. Freedom is very popular and it works,

Thank You for the opportunity to answer these questions.

Darrell L. Castle

Constitution Party Vice Chairman


Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

You might be a Right Wing Extremist if..........

You believe that abortion is wrong, and that life should always be the answer.
You believe we should have strong borders, and deport all illegal immigrants.
You believe the massive taxation & spending by the government is outrageous.
You believe that there are anti-gun forces in the White House, and you prepare by buying extra ammo and guns.
You believe the U.N. is anti-American interests (which they are).
You are a returning Veteran from Iraq, because you are a super-dangerous to the lives of all citizens, even though you fought for freedom and their protection for 2 years.

Are you a right wing extremist? I am not a Veteren, but I do believe in all of the above. We live in a time where Conservatives and hell anyone who has a "R" next to their name is hated by the government, and ignored even more by the main stream media. Don't let that get you down though, because we always prevail, and..............................we've got the Constitution on our side.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Interview: Rob Panico

Jumping in Pools is continuing its interview series with its sixth installment. Our last two interviews has been with a black Republican leader, Wayne Perriman, and with former Bush speechwriter Troy Senik. A resident of Middleburgh, NY, Rob Panico is a politically astute organizer. Rob was an integral part of Schoharie County's Ron Paul 2008 campaign. A graduate of the University of Albany, Rob has graciously allowed us to interview him on his state of politics and the wider world.

1. What is the most pressing threat to the United States in the next five years? In the next twenty?

The United States government has wielded considerable influence in the world, having the ability to almost unilaterally sculpt the world order. The days of the United States government being a hegemonic "soft empire" are drawing to a close . How the nation adapts to these changes will largely define the collective threat levels faced by the population of individuals that reside within the borders of the USA. Let's keep in mind that the United States is a fictional entity and the threats that it faces to its existence are not necessarily the same as the threats faced by the individuals who are the citizens and residents of the lands under the political control of the US government.

Many more people die or are seriously injured in automobile accidents and from cardiac problems than from terrorism. Nonetheless, the government spends a disproportionate amount of money on anti-terrorism measures for a variety of reasons, but mostly to insure its own health rather than the health of its people.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism along with a whole variety of other actions committed by our terrorist founding fathers. In this day and age, a terrorist, as defined by the government, is anyone who threatens the government. We ought to be careful to not hype this threat of terrorism so much as to create a government tyranny which is a much worse threat to the life and liberty of its people. I firmly believe the USA as an idea can only fall from within. Citizens of high civic virtue must and ought to make it their duty to speak out against the loss of liberties and the violations of human rights, by ANY entity, especially including their own government. This is my definition of patriotism whereas placing your head in the sand makes a person an accomplice to injustice. Consider the citizens of Germany during the Nazi era and their level of guilt or innocence for going along with the programs and "just following orders". We must vigorously defend the 1st amendment so that the 2nd is never needed.

In terms of threats to individual residents of the nation, they are many and varied in nature. Health problems, financial distress, compartmentalization of morality according to role, and social discord are probably at the top of the list, generally speaking. Only a particular individual can fully know all of the the threats that face them personally.

The idea of the USA and the spirit which conceived it are a whole other matter. That idea is rapidly gaining in popularity again and so the future of the USA as an idea is very bright indeed. The torch grows brighter with each passing day. Sometimes, the philosophy of the the USA and its government are not synchronized. Likewise, sometimes the philosophy of the USA and the thinking of its people are also not synchronized. We have forgotten who we are as a people, and this is perhaps our greatest threat... that we roll over and submit to tyranny, having lost the memories of our forebears. It is time to stop blindly pledging allegiance to something which no longer represents that which is described in that very pledge and work to again make it so through education, community involvement, and civic virtue.

2. Much has been made about the candidacy of Ron Paul in 2007-2008. Do you feel that in 2012, a third-party candidate can achieve a large following?

Ron Paul ran for nomination as a Republican candidate. I don't believe that a third party candidate will have any chance at the presidency until reforms are made to the electoral process and third party candidates are invited to attend the debates. Sadly, the size of the following of any candidate who is not mainstream, is still heavily dependent on them being able to get their message out via mainstream media channels, especially television. While the Internet is continuing to surprise many people, it is still not capable of sparking majority support for such a candidate. So long as television favors only status quo candidates who are picked and approved by the establishment, the people will have no true representatives in their government.

3. Do you believe that the government is telling us an accurate depiction of the state of the economy?

The government consists of many different agencies. The government as a whole does not agree with itself. That said, government agencies are overwhelmingly staffed by economists from the Keynesian school of economics, which is incapable of providing solutions to this economic crisis. The treasury department, the congress, and the federal reserve system are most to blame for the current crisis but are also the primary government and quasi-government spokesmen for the economy, which doesn't bode well for the public receiving accurate information, since there is no incentive for these groups to provide it and every incentive to obfuscate it.


4. Which is more likely by 2012, hyperinflation or massive deflation?

We are primarily mired in a monetary system crisis. What happens depends on how quickly a new, stable monetary system is put in place globally. I believe we are looking at a very long, extended period of stagflation. This is where we have economic recession mixed with high inflation. Inflation will be most pronounced for all commodities, including food. Other asset class prices may actually continue to adjust downward as a result of de-leveraging of assets and defaults on debts. I'm expecting the Dow Jones to continue to move downward in price for the next few years.


5. What are some steps that folks in Schoharie County and other rural areas can undertake to insulate themselves from the overall problems facing the nation?

It is impractical, unproductive, and probably impossible to view the county as separate from the state and the nation. This is a global crisis and it will effect Schoharie as it will effect everywhere else. Local action is still important and more local organization will appear in response to a loss of services coming from higher government authorities and from loss of employment on the part of residents. Residents of the county could take the initiative in any of the following areas to improve the standard of living for all residents:
(1) Immediately curb government spending by putting pressure on elected officials and voting in more frugal officials. Press for tax cuts. Remove redundancies in government through greater efficiency. Cut waste. Become less dependent on higher government authorities for subsidies.
(2) Increase production of locally owned and operated agriculture and end dependence on GMO seeds provided by large conglomerates, such as Monsanto. Residents should plant gardens. The cannery due to open in the county soon will be a major help.
(3) Provide increased locally produced, renewable energy from biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
(4) Save money in the form of precious metals, especially silver, to protect local capital.
(5) Purchase firearms and ammunition and join the local rod and gun club.
(6) Elect a pro-liberty Sheriff who understands the constitution and will defend the rights and freedoms of county residents. Sheriffs are not intended to be merged in with higher levels of law enforcement. End cooperation between federal agencies and local law enforcement. Put an end to using prisons as a revenue source – no housing out of county prisoners.
(7) Form local co-operatives for consumers and producers. Expand farmer's markets and local distribution of goods and services. Create a co-operative health clinic.
(8) Encourage more volunteerism and local control of education. Form extracurricular home based study groups for children, which include many parents, to augment the educational experience.
(9) Expand the Schoharie County gift certificates program and provided silver backing to all notes issued. Essentially, transform them into Schoharie County specific silver certificates, issued directly by the chamber of commerce.
(10) Create local capital funds, managed by local broker-dealers, to invest in local businesses and projects. Localize financing as much as possible. Issue corporate bonds for local companies to raise money for operations and improvements.
(11) Spread all forms of knowledge that residents will need to survive and prosper as free people.


6. In the next five years, is there anything you see occuring that will be a total shock to America/the World. (ex-- technology, medical advances, terrorism, war, shortages, political shifts, etc.)

Perhaps not in the next five years, but certainly at some point in the near term future. There is actually an energy abundance in the form of renewable energy, but obsolete institutions stand in the way of fully realizing the potential of these sources. Terrorism, as we now understand it, has much to do with government policy and so will wax or wane in response to our policy directions. There is an increased likelihood of war over natural resources. There are new military technologies which the public is largely unaware of which have rendered all conventional weapons obsolete for purposes other than intervention in backward parts of the world. New cancer research, especially electro-therapy and radiotherapy will not only cure cancer but also unlock the mysteries of aging. Many of our current innovations are held back by the inefficiency of our public-private form of economic organization and a lack of political will to change it.


7.. What is the biggest threat to the Constitution?

The founders set up a system, manifest in the original constitution and its first ten amendments, which was a republic. To maintain the republican form of government, a balance was created with checks and balances. This balance has been completely thrown off over the years and we no longer have a functional republic as originally intended. Our checks and balances have largely collapsed as the state has emerged as a highly centralized, national entity which exercises federal supremacy over most of the globe, through the executive and its many agencies, and various "public-private partnerships" (corporatism). The biggest single threat to the Constitution is ignorance. Ignorance of the intent of the framers. Ignorance of their experiences and motivations. Ignorance about how similar the US government has become to the old British empire. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of the purpose and spirit of the document. A lack of understanding on the part of government officials and the general public. One can neither honor nor protect something that one does not understand. The popular idea that the Constitution is archaic, obsolete, or a living document are all highly counter-productive in this regard. Ignorance about the difference between government and people. Ignorance of politics, ethics, philosophy, history, and law among the general population. Ignorance about the monetary system. Ignorance of what is meant by terms such as democracy, republic, capitalism, socialism, corporatism, free market, liberty, and freedom are hurting the USA as an idea, a people, and a government lawfully constituted. When ignorance is replaced by knowledge and apathy replaced by conviction, we will be a constitutional republic once again.


Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

A Dangerous Precedent to Seize Business

The federal government is looking into a radical increase of powers, including the ability to seize privately-owned firms. This precedent would go far beyond the already-existing powers of the Treasury Department. The government is justifying this by declaring that if these companies fail, then the economy fails.

Such a justification is a dangerous increase of governmental powers. The Obama Administration is looking to have the Congress rubber-stamp this proposal. The ability to seize companies without due process is counter to precepts of the Constitution. This should additionally be approved by the Supreme Court in order to prove whether or not it is Constitutional.

One of the biggest problems with this legislation is that the government could use these powers to seize other business, potentially leading to an increase of socialization. This nationalization could cause the government to take over industries deemed "vital." How long until GM, Ford, or Winchester is owned by the government?

While the chances of this is unlikely over the next several years, giving the government the power to do this is a terrible experiment. And what about our energy supplies? What if the federal government decides to seize Exxon?

Caution is required at moments like this.

Consider advertising on our site!
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution

Conservative News and Reporting
"News for the Rest of Us"
Michele Chang

NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece. While you're here, read other articles, like Obama going on the quarter, how he's genetically superior, and how he took down Blago. And you can also check out Joe's Babe of the Week, which comes out every Friday. And become a fan and return and tell your friends. Word up.

For those who like this satire, buy my book, The Real History of World War II.

NOTE: This article did not appear in, or was sanctioned in any way by the National Law Journal.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.

A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.

"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has always been to the Constitution."

The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes too far.

"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department, including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the bureaucracy and the brass."

Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale for the change was made more clear.

"The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."

"We expect a lot of flak over this," the classified memo continues. "But those that would be most against it are those looking either for attention or control."

The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out within two years.

Uh Oh: Dem Wants to Repeal Presidential Term Limits

The Democrats have their race horse and they'll ride him until 2040 if they need to. Hell, the guy's only 47. A perfect person to be the first twenty-term President. Think I'm nuts? Well, at least one Democrat wants to repeal an entire part of the Constitution so that President Obama could serve just a little bit longer.

From H.J. Resolution 5:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Fasten your seat belts.... this is going to be a bumpy ride.

As per the Constitution

all a man needs to be is 30 years old, a United States citizen, a citizen of the state and the country for a number of years, to be appointed be a legal Governor and he is a Senator. This is the case of Roland Burris, as Conservatives including myself at first felt - this man should not be allowed into the United States Senate, then it donned on me : according to a Supreme Court ruling & the United States Constitution - Roland Burris is a legal United States Senator.

I suspect corruption.

But I also suspect both Blago & Burris will get an un-welcomed 2010 election cycle.

We need to follow the Constitution, no matter how hard it might be some times.

This is what devines the right from the wrong. Supporting the Constitution even when the appointment smells of dead fish, instead of disgracing in based on ego.

Constitution - seat Roland Burris - that is good enough for me. Until 2010, then I hope the Illinois GOP destroys him.


Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

Fighting for the Constitution.

A few weeks ago, I wrote on Jumping In Pools about a Congressman from California, who said she was in favor of re-instating the nisnamed "fairness doctrine" which if anything, silences more people, so I wrote this Congressman an email, and I got a very disturbing letter back, she was actually advocating for stricter laws by the F.C.C on radio stations, and a localism brand of the fairnes doctrine. Localism is where they can claim that a radio station is not airing enough local voices or public outreach programs (since when does the government have the damn authority to tell the FREE PRESS what to have on their shows?), and threaten to take away their license of fine them.

This is wrong on so many angles, especially with the Constitution, which is the highest authority in the land as to American founding documents, the First Amendment states as followed
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.

A fairness doctrine would violate the freedom of speech & the freedom of the press, this is Un-constitutional.

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, wrote about the fairness doctrine today, which included some reference to Ronald Reagan, and why he lifted the fairness doctrine in 1987.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84807

I'll give you hint, because it was and is the right thing to do.



Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below: