This segment of my Constitutional brief will cover Article I, the Congress and the Legislative Branch. I don't intend to cover each and every segment, but I do intend to cover those parts that I feel are very important and not being handled correctly by our employees.
Section 2 states, in part, that "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of twenty five Years, and been Seven years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
I would suggest an amendment to this particular section. Said amendment would read "No Person shall be a representative who shall not have attained the the age of twenty five Years, and been Seven years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen for a period of less than two years. Such representative shall not serve for more than 12 consecutive years, and shall not have been convicted of a felony in any of these United States." That would eliminate Congressman Bobby Rush of Chicago, a founder of the Black Panther Party who spent 6 months in prison on weapons charges. It would also include Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings, who, as a US District Judge, was impeached in 1989 by the House of Representatives on a vote of 413-3 and convicted by the US Senate, on a vote of 69-26, of perjury and conspiracy to accept a bribe. Mr. Hastings will tell you that this conviction was reversed by the US District Court in 1992. This is true, the conviction was reversed. What he won't tell you is that less than six months later the District Court ruling was reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Section 3 states, in part, that "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
Again, I would suggest an amendment, as above, modifying the section to read as follows: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the Age of thirty Years, and been nine years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen for a period of less than six years. Such Senator shall not serve for more than twelve consecutive years and shall not have been convicted of a felony in any of these United States."
Food for thought, 25 to be a Congressman, 30 to be a Senator, and 35 to be President. Congress elects its own officers. The succession of command is President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tem of the Senate. What happens if the Pres and the VEEP die, the Speaker is 29 and the President Pro Tem is 32? Or neither the Speaker nor the President Pro Tem are natural (i.e. born here) citizens of the United States? More on that subject in a later article.
Section 8 states that "The Congress shall have the Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions:..." Now I'm really confused, according to Title 10, US Code there are two classes of militia; the organized militia or National Guard and the unorganized militia, which is all of the rest of us. Since the National Guard (the organized militia) may only be Federalized to execute the law, suppress insurrection or repel invasion why are they serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign lands? How come Congress blames the Iraq war on President Bush, when the war has/is being fought with the National Guard AND ONLY THE CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO FEDERALIZE THE NATIONAL GUARD?? I asked that question, a few years ago, of select Congressional staffers and was told that Congress gave the President the authority to do that a number of years ago. EXCUSE ME - THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER - CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. ONLY "WE THE PEOPLE" HAVE THAT RIGHT AND THAN ONLY VIA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!
Section 8 also mandates Congress "To excercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District...as may, ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." (i.e. the District of Columbia) Than why does the District have a city counsel? Why do they have an elected Mayor? Why do they pass their own laws, many of them in violation of the Bill of Rights? Did Congress, once again in violation of the Constitution, give away some of it's power and authority without the consent of "We the People"? The key words in this line are "exclusive" and "in all cases whatsoever"!
Additionally, Section 8 tells us that "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." What does that mean to us? Well, no where else in the Constitution does it assign the ability to make Law. Constitutionally, only the Congress may pass a Bill, and it doesn't become Law unless the President approves it or Congress overrides his veto. Well, there is a phrase called common law "...which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter (sic) adopted by the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws." (http://www.lectlaw.com/) Precedent is "The body of judicial decisions in which were formulated the points of law arising in any case. A previously decided case that is considered binding in the court where it was issued and in all lower courts in the same jurisdiction." (http://www.lectlaw.com/) Now, I, for one, have a problem with both common law and precedent. I can see where they would be acceptable, but they also appear to be unconstitutional. If only the Congress has the power to make law, than why do our courts follow common law - which was NOT passed by the Congress? If 536 of our employees (House, Senate, President) have not seen fit to make a law concerning a given subject, than why do we allow just one of our employees (i.e. U.S. District Court Judge) to make law using "precedent"? There is something inherently wrong with a system that tells us that we can be ruled by that one Judge, who is an appointed employee vice an elected employee. In essence, we didn't even hire him!!!
Section 9 has a number of key provisions in it, but the one I like best states "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." A Bill of Attainder Law is one that singles out an individual or a group for punishment without trial (http://www.techlawjournal.com/). An Ex Post Facto Law is one which criminalizes conduct that was not a crime when it was committed, increases the punishment for a crime beyond what it was at the time the act was committed, or deprives a person of a defense available at the time the act was committed (http://www.lectlaw.com/). How can that effect you? Well the illustrious Bobby Rush has a Bill in the House right now, H.R. 45. Section 101 of that bill says "It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license..." Well if it's legal for me to own a firearm today, and I purchase it today, the bill passes and is signed into law sometime in the future, the legal weapon I bought today is now illegal. I believe that the Supreme Court would overturn this bill if it was passed. There will be more on this piece of legislation at a later date.
May the Lord watch over our brothers in arms as they keep us safe.
Gunner Sends
No comments:
Post a Comment