What kind of democracy did the framers of the constitution envision for America? And does it even matter given the expanse of time that separates their world from the modern era.

Is their vision even relevent today?

This from a recent interview with American historian Gore Vidal:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/1353259

"Incidentally, for your listeners, viewers, the word democracy is not only never mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, but democracy was something that the founding fathers hated.

This is not generally known because it shouldn't be known, but it is. I wrote a little book about it called, "Inventing A Nation," that Yale published last year.

Our founders feared two things. One was the rule of the people, which they thought would just be a mess. And they feared tyranny, which we had gone through King George III, and so they wanted a republic, a safe place for men – white men of property to do business in. This is not ideal, but it's better than what we have."

Democracy?

Republic?

Empire?

http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived.htm

"Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy.

James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Although such an attitude will surprise most Americans, it is accurate.

The United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy. It does "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...."

Well they certainly didn't underestimate rise of corruptionand power hunger in the federal government nor the the publics ability to feed them.

How many slaves signed on to "facebook" right now.

Quite honestly, "fuck the people".

Our founders feared two things. One was the rule of the people, which they thought would just be a mess.


I think this is too generalized and needs a bit more detail. Consider the numerous remarks by Jefferson along the following lines:

The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights

It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves....

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of
the society but the people themselves


It seems to me it wasn't so much a fear of rule by the people per se, but fear of two closely related scenarios:

(1) Tyranny of the majority -- individual or minority rights being trampled because most of "the people" have a different opinion on an issue. (This is basically taken care of by the Bill of Rights, which provides strong protection for individual liberty.)

(2) Rule by ignorant, uneducated people. Jefferson also commented on this, saying that the system will only work if "the people" are well-informed and educated. (This, clearly, remains a problem.)

Obviously, the Founders chose a republic over a true democracy. And obviously they had some reservations about the ability of the people to participate in a responsible, educated manner. And obviously they had a more restricted view of who was allowed to participate, with regards to sex, race, and socioeconomic status.

Still, I think it's important to not lose sight of the place "the people" held in the underlying philosophy that drove the Founders to design the government that they did. The core of that philosophy was that governmental power is granted by the people, rather than government granting freedom to the people. I'd say the Founders were cautious about how much direct influence the people should have; but to call it fear is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Excellent input LK!
Would you agree then that there should be a few intellectual conditions attached to voting rights.

If a citizen for example doesnt know the difference between a congressman and a senator, or how long they hold office, or what the national debt is approx, or where England is on a map...should they be allowed to choose your leaders?

To earn the right to vote, perhaps there should be a simple test.

The conditions for voting in the early days...white male of property and of a certain age...are obviously no longer acceptable.

Locke was tight though. A government with the consent of the governed and all that. Cooler than all the founding fathers...except Franklin.

Ugh... why does it matter what the Founding Fathers thought? Not that I'm saying we should shrugg off history, but if we REALLY did what they wanted we'd:

--deny women the right to vote (except for, perhaps, Adams who may have been one of the first quasi-women's suffragists in the US)
--deny women ANY right to debate publicly with men
--give only land owners the right to vote
--keep the brown people out of the franchise
--allow children to be treated as slave labor by their (sometimes) manipulative parents

Not that the US was a cesspool of evil activity at the time-- they were, in fact, eons ahead of their time. But, the Founding Fathers are dead, and thank GOD they are.

~String

Ugh... why does it matter what the Founding Fathers thought? Not that I'm saying we should shrugg off history, but if we REALLY did what they wanted we'd:

--deny women the right to vote (except for, perhaps, Adams who may have been one of the first quasi-women's suffragists in the US)
--deny women ANY right to debate publicly with men
--give only land owners the right to vote
--keep the brown people out of the franchise
--allow children to be treated as slave labor by their (sometimes) manipulative parents

Not that the US was a cesspool of evil activity at the time-- they were, in fact, eons ahead of their time. But, the Founding Fathers are dead, and thank GOD they are.

~String

um...they also told us to revise the laws as to keep them modern.
would you like a source?

Excellent input LK!
Would you agree then that there should be a few intellectual conditions attached to voting rights.

If a citizen for example doesnt know the difference between a congressman and a senator, or how long they hold office, or what the national debt is approx, or where England is on a map...should they be allowed to choose your leaders?

To earn the right to vote, perhaps there should be a simple test.



Actually yes, I do believe there should be some sort of conditions involved. I'm not sure what form they should take though. Perhaps something as simple as passing a comprehensive civics course in high school. Or maybe simply proving that you graduated from high school. Or passing a short but revealing test just before voting. I don't know. I do know that if other democratic countries do a better job of educating their people, then those people will choose their leaders more wisely, and those countries will outperform us.

would you like a source?

Yes, please. Not that I don't believe you (i don't of course).

Ugh... why does it matter what the Founding Fathers thought?

Yeah, it's one more topic that sciforums members can argue and disagree about! And heaven knows, we don't have enough disagreement around here on topics, ya' know?

All that loving and caring and helping your neighbor and ....all that other liberal bullshit is just for talking, not for actual doing! :D

Baron Max

Ugh... why does it matter what the Founding Fathers thought?


You've said that before, String.

No one is saying we should have precisely the same kind of society that existed 200 years ago. But the founding of our government and Constitution was one of the revolutionary events in history (no pun intended!), and it's important to understand the thought processes behind it. This is especially true if we want to modify it wisely while preserving the really important elements.

..., and it's important to understand the thought processes behind it.

Why? You said it, now please explain why it's so important.

Baron Max

Why? You said it, now please explain why it's so important.

Baron Max


In very basic terms it's that old adage, "those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it." Or alternatively, "you don't know where you're going if you don't know where you've come from."

It is important to understand the history and beginnings of our government and Constitution so that we do not let the freedoms guaranteed under it slip away. This is a very real danger, IMO, as a large portion of today's population is firghteningly ignorant of such matters, and we have already given up too much of that freedom.

How can we recognize when the government oversteps its bounds, if we don't understand the basis for what those bounds are? So many people today see our liberty as a kind of gift bestowed on us by government. An understanding of the underlying philosophy behind our Constitution would help people realize how ass-backwards that view is. It would also have consequences for how people choose their leaders, or how they view proposed legislation. Or how they choose the judges who interpret the Constitution, or how they choose the leaders who appoint those judges. How can you trust that judicial opinions are in accordance with Constitutional philosophy if you don't have an understanding of it yourself?

Yes, please. Not that I don't believe you (i don't of course).

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

could i ask to be more specific?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/1353259
my, my, what a sentimental dumbfuck you are.


This is not generally known because it shouldn't be known, but it is. I wrote a little book about it called, "Inventing A Nation," that Yale published last year.
that's right, it isn't generally known . . . to todays youth.
if the pledge of allegiance was still being said in our schools you would have no doubt our nation is a republic.

could i ask to be more specific?

ugh.
ok. give me a few.

monkey:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/809.htm

um...they also told us to revise the laws as to keep them modern.
would you like a source?

No. I'm quite well versed in US history. And (not that you need me to affirm your statement)-- you are quite right. I never said that the founders WEREN'T ahead of their times, or the most capable intellects since ancient Greece. They did, indeed, enshrine in the US constitution all the necessary mechanisms for a successful Republic.

The funny thing, though-- most of them agreed to the constitution because they either thought it just strong enough to hold the country together until a new constitution could be created and a King put on the throne... or TOO strong, but so riddled with faults that it would inevitably fall apart and be replace with a weaker, more decentralized government. All but a handful of them thought it was a transient document that would soon be replaced (something, for now, instead of anarchy).

The compromise, whithout them actually knowing it... was so close to perfection (except for the 3/5 compromise and "slavery" clauses), a shame that few of them at that time realized the amazing foundation they laid.

You've said that before, String.

No one is saying we should have precisely the same kind of society that existed 200 years ago. But the founding of our government and Constitution was one of the revolutionary events in history (no pun intended!), and it's important to understand the thought processes behind it. This is especially true if we want to modify it wisely while preserving the really important elements.

LIEGE!! HOLY SHIT! It's nice to see you man! (or woman... strangly enough, over the years, I never learned your sex... I think... and if I did, I plum forgot)

Oh-- and your statements are true. My statements were NOT meant to unaffirm the imporance of history, only in the "we need to shape our interpretations by conventional and current issues" sense. The anacronistic ways of thinking (though, in the case of Adams [for instance], some were WAY ahead of their time), should not overshadow the importance of making a sound decision with what we know today, and NOT do "what the Founders wanted".

~String

even they didnt want the system to remain static, is the point.

No. I'm quite well versed in US history. And (not that you need me to affirm your statement)-- you are quite right. I never said that the founders WEREN'T ahead of their times, or the most capable intellects since ancient Greece.

haha...

Proof?

LIEGE!! HOLY SHIT! It's nice to see you man! (or woman... strangly enough, over the years, I never learned your sex... I think... and if I did, I plum forgot)


LOL.... memory's going downhill huh? "Man" will do just fine.

Good to see you too. CZ brought this place to my attention, so I thought I'd come over and make my presence known. (All part of my master plan to conquer the universe, you know?)

Yeah... I shot Counte Zero a PM on SciFi Haven a month or so back and BEGGED him to come pay a visit. I promised him LOTS of interesting and intelligent debate. At least I delivered on the "interesting" part. ;)

Good to see you. Now, we need to get Daggs and a few others here and my evil plan will be complete.

Mua-ha-ha-haaaaaaa!

~String

haha...

Proof?

My oppinion. It is arguable... name a time, and place, where such considerable intellects gathered and had such PRFOUND effects on history.

~String

My oppinion. It is arguable... name a time, and place, where such considerable intellects gathered and had such PRFOUND effects on history.

~String

oh ok. so it doesn't mean anything.

oh ok. so it doesn't mean anything.

Really? It doesn't mean ANYTHING? Anything AT ALL? C'mon... you're better than that.

Look... I'm not arguing for some divinely inherited greatness of the American republic or any other nonsense like that any more than I am arguing that Greek culture is the best in the world. All I'm saying, is that there wasn't a comprable gathering of intellects on Earth since the days of ancient Greece.

I mean, THINK about it: Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Monroe were the leaders of a think tank of roughly 30 erudites that contributed to the world across the board. That single groupe is responsible for more inventions, philosophies, culinary developments (YES, CULINARY-- see: Jefferson), governmental ideas, scientific development, and artistic creations than any other single group on Earth since the time of Greece.

Would that we had such intellects leading our government now.

~String

All i see is brainwashing in action. None of these people even make the curriculum in Europe when discussing intellectual history. Especially since there are so many truly great intellects to pick from European history.

All i see is brainwashing in action. None of these people even make the curriculum in Europe when discussing intellectual history. Especially since there are so many truly great intellects to pick from European history.

those arent american though...
duh.

those arent american though...
duh.

i forgot they spoke "American" in Greece.

Then again, there is a bit of anti-Americanism in the teachings of Europeans... though, you don't find NEARLY as much anti-Europeanism here in the States... ind fact, you find quite a LOT of Eurocentric history taught here. When you set yourself out as "Anti" anything, you limit your intellectual capacity and it can never expand beyond that. Which is what Europe has become today. Anti-American. Good for them. They hate us.

But, funny thing, when I was studying my semester in France, and when I studied in Spain for a year, you know what, we DID indeed learn a great deal about three of the founding fathers-- Jefferson, Franklin and Washington. So, don't say that it never comes up. Granted... there is a bit of over-reverence here in the states. But, again, tell me of a time when there were so many men of such intellect gathered in one place who had such a large impact on history? I'm not altogether ignorant of European history. In fact, history is my forté. I didn't say, "Voltair didn't matter" (oh-- by the way, Benjamin Franklin oversaw Voltaire's initiation into the Freemasons-- something I learned in France, which, as nations go, seems to LOVE the man [Franklin that is]), or that DaVinci wasn't smarter than them all (he was, indeed)... what I am sayin is that, at the time of the Revolution, the men that formed the new republic were the single greatest concentration of intellects since ancient Greece.

~String

I agree with your opinion, String, rather than the spurious arguments of monkeys.

I agree with your opinion, String, rather than the spurious arguments of monkeys.
take it easy on my hunky monkey, moron.

I agree with your opinion, String, rather than the spurious arguments of monkeys.

its best to hang out for awhile before insulting established members. :)
even string was pretty mellow for a few days when he got here.

I agree with your opinion, String, rather than the spurious arguments of monkeys.

No surprise there; takes intellect to understand a double PhD.

I agree with your opinion, String, rather than the spurious arguments of monkeys.

Gracias amigo. Though, I have to say, I may not agree with spurious... EVER... but I rather like the guy. At least he's true to his beliefs... and has amusing bouncy boobies to boot!

its best to hang out for awhile before insulting established members. :).

What he said was HARDLY an insult... more of a play on words/names. Not flattering... but hardly insulting.

No surprise there; takes intellect to understand a double PhD.


OOOOOOOH! A double PhD! Wow. What were we thinking! I take it all back.

I'd say "typical liberal", but that goes without being said.

~String

I'd say "typical liberal", but that goes without being said.
~String
more like left wing whacknut.

What he said was HARDLY an insult... more of a play on terms. Not flattering... but hardly insulting.

semantics. the guy is a friend of mine, and the comments made about him were insulting. everything he has said in this thread is viable, and you know it.

OOOOOOOH! A double PhD! Wow. What were we thinking! I take it all back.

I'd say "typical liberal", but that goes without being said.

~String

Yeah, that's the advantage of education; something y'all might consider from time to time.;)

Sam rarely does more than drop an agruement grenade and runs. Substance, relevance, and proof factor little into what he says.

~String

i have come to notice a trend... a lack of specific understanding... and it is not your fault.

Your not supposed to know, or be thinking about it.

I have choosen to make this humble attempt to allow you to fully understand.
Once you understand, and you will, then you will see what has happened, and you will understand, but you are not going to like it.... not at all.

Ready?
Around 1873 the 'war and emergency POWERS act' was inacted.
It, literally allows the president to establish a state of emergency and there by..... PUT THE CONSTITUTION ASIDE, and do what ever he, and the government needs to do to stop unrest, riots, uprissing... or and for the purposes of that “war and emergency powers act'.. invasion, and large scale infiltration.
It was inacted... but there was no invasion... and no war...
Then the high times of the 10's... the 20's... and then the crash.
Then what happened?

The new deal !!!!... do ya remember that one? The new deal for america.... it was in 1933... america accepted the new deal.
The new deal... was very simple, but made confusing.
The president, declares a state of emergency, and is therefore, no longer limited by the constitution, AT ALL, and then with the state of emergency the fed... the president, could do all the things, which the founding fathers tried to prevent.

in 1933... this is what happened.
The old fed, the one limited by the constitution was killed, and a new fed, with unlimited super powers was born. This new fed, lives as long as that state of emergency is active, so its all legal. A new kind of fed, with powers to create the now, 66 million federal statutory laws, we as free men are supposed to obey.
The fed, in 1933... gave up all the rules of the constitution, and it was able to do it, because, it was legal, it was an emergency.
That specific state of emergency, IS STILL IN EFFECT.
YES, and if you talk to many you will find that congress did supposively addressed this issue in the 70's, with an act that states that all states of emergencies must end after two years.
WHICH DOES NOTHING, because if you read it, it says clearly that it does not apply to long term pre-existing states declared.
It applied only to those to be declared.
That is why the president did not declare a state of emergency when 9 / 11 hit... he didnt have to.
Every sitting president since 1933, has had emergency powers.
Only a sitting president can reverse the state of emergency..!
if he says nothing, he holds the reins of all the powers, that the constitution says he is not supposed to have.
If he, the president, was to end the state of emergency, he would literally be destroying the modern federal state.
Which would be ok.... SINCE IT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONE.

THE president.. wont do it... because people like you dont care.

And most of you.... JUST DONT KNOW.

They wave the constitution in your face as if it has power.
It does not.... NOT SINCE 1933. and it never will again, so long as the fed remains in that same state of emergency since 1933.

in 1933... this is what happened.. and how to fix it.
1)the old... magna carta, common law, legal system, was replaced with a new legal system, based on contract and tort.
That is why in law today, you CANNOT use any precident, dated before 1933. our entire legal system is unconstitutional, since .... since... since... it is based on the fact that all of us.. are all ingaged in WILLING contracts with the new illegal fed.
The problem is.. no one knows about it.. or understands.
2) All people... in 1933 were made 14th ammendment citizens.. even though, under the constitution, we dont have to be any such thing. As the 14th ammendment was ment... MENT... MENT.... FOR EX-SLAVES... WHO HAD NO RIGHTS.
The 14th ammement says cleary... citizens are under the jurisdiction of the state!!! under!!
and are given... what??? priviledges and benefits.
Why??/? Because you have no rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they were taken away... in 1933.. when they killled the constitution.
We all became then.. ex slaves... to be helped and regulated by the fed, which....
3) the fed.... is then directly funded and financed by the federal reserve bank.. also unconstitutional, and it produces a currency which is backed by our peoples labor and output.
Our GDP... unconstitutional, since it enslaves us all.
The Fed, is also, privately owned.. by international investors, and they run our society like well oiled slaves, all of which are not even legally allowed to own gold. Only pretty little coins.
4) We ... are all supposed to be free men... like kings and queens, and the fed is supposed to serve the states, and that states serve the sovereign citizens. Sovereign citizens, that have all the constitutional rights, of the bill of rights.
NO ONE TODAY, HAS THESE RIGHTS... its all been robbed from us.. and we dont even know it... our rights have been replaced by civil liberties, and priviledges.
The ACLU... knows all about it.. it was born in 1933.
5) this was all done... to provide social security, and medicare, and to allow for regulation of some industries.
Was it a good deal? Did we get a good deal?
no... we all got robbed.

6) The real issue... is the fact.... fact... that we have all been FORCED INTO CONTRACTING!... WE HAVE BEEN FOOLED.
That is illegal, in a contract law court... and so.. all courts.
But no body knows... so no one complains.

7) There is only one solution.... : demand an end to the state of emergency, a return to constitutional law, and the passing of several acts, allowing the fed, certain, limited specific powers to maintain the dollar, social security and medicare, until the national and individual gold reserves develop over time, and at which time, the dollar must become gold or silver based.

8) This is a test for you.... you complain everyday on the radios, the internet, about the evils of the fed... of the government... even though all the democrats are in on the whole 1933 new deal. If you dont make this an issue, then it is clear, you work for them. call your congressman.


In the world today.... you seem to see something wrong with the government.
Well... hopefully, now, you can see it for what it is.... and whats its problem.
it is...... in a desperate state of emergency... and it is very fragile.

It is likely to break.

I dont recommend letting that happen, but... eh... no one listens to me.


-Mosheh Thezion

Sam rarely does more than drop an agruement grenade and runs. Substance, relevance, and proof factor little into what she says.

~String

Corrected

Republicans are all of a cloth; they have opinions that classify as facts, and others have arguments without basis, even when supported by actual occurences.:shrug:

Thanks Mosheh. Um. I guess there's truth in there somewhere. The suspicious man in me thinks that there may be a whole lot of truth in it... the idealist thinks not. I've heard things like that before (I had a member of the "Patriots" sit at my bar a decade ago and regale me with stories of how the president is now a king and we have no freedoms anymore). Do I think we're doomed as a society? Yeah. But not sure if THAT is the reason.

~String

in 1933... this is what happened.
The old fed, the one limited by the constitution was killed, and a new fed, with unlimited super powers was born. This new fed, lives as long as that state of emergency is active, so its all legal. A new kind of fed, with powers to create the now, 66 million federal statutory laws, we as free men are supposed to obey.

you are talking about martial law.
the president has always been able to declare martial law.
the president, from 1776 on, has always been able to suspend the constitution.

alex jones anyone?

its best to hang out for awhile before insulting established members. :)
even string was pretty mellow for a few days when he got here.


I meant no insult to Mr. Monkey (is that the right gender?). It was simply a word play on his(?) name. Surely I can't be the first person ever to do so. The name almost begs for it. Again, no offense meant.

take it easy on my hunky monkey, moron.


Now there, Devil, is a clear example of an insult.

No surprise there; takes intellect to understand a double PhD.


So I take it the Argument from Authority plays pretty well around here?

Now there, Devil, is a clear example of an insult.
i take my manboobs seriously

Republicans are all of a cloth; they have opinions that classify as facts, and others have arguments without basis, even when supported by actual occurences.:shrug:

Again, the ad hominem attacks, aimed at me, yet repeatedly missing the mark. I'm not a Republican. I can't stand Bush. I think he's not a good president. Many of his foreign policies are disasterous and he's become a tax and spend idiot with the rest of the Republican party (It's sad when you have to look back on CLINTON as the good old days of having a ballanced budged [though, to be fair, he had a Republican Congress]). I can't stand modern conservatism. I'm a gay athiest, and detest the moralistic pontificating of most Republicans. So, bash them all you want... it has little bearing in me.

But, after your pointless statements, supported with ZERO substance in the "Moderation / Illegal Downloading of Music" thread a while back I noticed you hit rock bottom... and pulled out a pick-axe and started digging.

~String

THE CONSTITUTION is supposed to LIMIT the fed...

to keep it limited.. so we can walk free... as kings and queens ourselves.. owning land.. really owning it.. everymans house.. should be his castle... and he should have the right to defend it to the death...

and no federal government agent is supposed to be able to deprive a free man life, liberty, property, or right to travel and association...

in todays world... they can take your life..
they take your liberty at the drop of a hat.
they take your property if you dont pay tax.
and they dont compensate you.......... why??
because today.. you dont own land... you own the right to use it, and pay taxes on it... that is all.

your right to travel, has been changed into driving priviledges...

every year, the regulations and restrictions on all of us, only grows.... and grows....

all of this... is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

-the constitution is dead... and unless you start caring about it... you will all be further and further enslaved.

ITS NOT TO LATE.

-MT

Again, the ad hominem attacks, aimed at me, yet repeatedly missing the mark. I'm not a Republican. I can't stand Bush. I think he's not a good president. Many of his foreign policies are disasterous and he's become a tax and spend idiot with the rest of the Republican party (It's sad when you have to look back on CLINTON as the good old days of having a ballanced budged [though, to be fair, he had a Republican Congress]). I can't stand modern conservatism. I'm a gay athiest, and detest the moralistic pontificating of most Republicans. So, bash them all you want... it has little bearing in me.

But, after your pointless statements, supported with ZERO substance in the "Moderation / Illegal Downloading of Music" thread a while back I noticed you hit rock bottom... and pulled out a pick-axe and started digging.

~String

Oh puhlease, you may not support Bush and you may be a gay atheist, but you've quite obviously been brought up with Republican ideals and they still show through.

As for the other thread, those were my opinions I was expressing; I still stand by them, no matter how they appear to you.:p

Okay... enough with the diatribes. We get it. Go start a thread specifically about your ideas/arguements if you wanna' continue.

~String

So I take it the Argument from Authority plays pretty well around here?

You better believe it. We don't take idiots seriously here.:)

Oh puhlease, you may not support Bush and you may be a gay atheist, but you've quite obviously been brought up with Republican ideals and they still show through.

Dude! I want to throw insults at you for how ignorant your statements are, but I find myself at a total loss for words.

FIRST-- my dad is a card carrying UNION steelworker here in Cleveland. Not a liberal, but DEFINATLY not a Republican. My step-mom (who raised me with my dad since I was 11) is a card carrying Democrat.

SECOND-- I went to highschool in Europe where "liberalism" is the word.

THIRD-- here's the real tricky one for you to recognize, my parents fostered debate at the table every day. No one was "forced" to have an oppinion. My three sisters are hyper-liberals (ugh... one even lives off the system), my two brothers are born again christian types (one's a preacher, ugh) who are very Republican. I'm a libertarian or a "Classical Liberal" and a total Objectivist. The ONLY Republican ideals you see in me are the ones where they happen to coincide with my beliefs. Leave it to you to try to paint a whole picture with a fraction of the information.

~String

You better believe it. We don't take idiots seriously here.:)

Which is precisely why all I've read in threads, and been PM'ed regarding you, is nothing but insults and jokes. (would a cheesy smily face make this any more palpable for you?) :)

~String

why dont you two idiots, take the fight elsewhere... and stay on topic.

the topic is the constitution, the wishes of the founders, and freedom.

not your love affair.

-MT

Ad Homs everywhere.

Dude! I want to throw insults at you for how ignorant your statements are, but I find myself at a total loss for words.

FIRST-- my dad is a card carrying UNION steelworker here in Cleveland. Not a liberal, but DEFINATLY not a Republican. My step-mom (who raised me with my dad since I was 11) is a card carrying Democrat.

SECOND-- I went to highschool in Europe where "liberalism" is the word.

THIRD-- here's the real tricky one for you to recognize, my parents fostered debate at the table every day. No one was "forced" to have an oppinion. My three sisters are hyper-liberals (ugh... one even lives off the system), my two brothers are born again christian types (one's a preacher, ugh) who are very Republican. I'm a libertarian or a "Classical Liberal" and a total Objectivist. The ONLY Republican ideals you see in me are the ones where they happen to coincide with my beliefs. Leave it to you to try to paint a whole picture with a fraction of the information.

~String

Its confusing enough that Americans change the meanings of words without adding new ones all the time. Libertarian? Objectivism? Is that Ayn Rand's brand of individualism? Worse and worse.

And talk about painting a picture based on a fraction of the information. Having family problems?:p

why dont you two idiots, take the fight elsewhere... and stay on topic.

the topic is the constitution, the wishes of the founders, and freedom.

not your love affair.

-MT

You're right. Let's post REALLY REALLY long and boring diatribes that no one will read.

Though you may be onto something.

How about we stick to the arguement at hand.

~String

You better believe it. We don't take idiots seriously here.:)

And yet I've seen enough of them in my short time here -- some with quite high post counts. Not that I'm mentioning anyone specific. :D

Which is precisely why all I've read in threads, and been PM'ed regarding you, is nothing but insults and jokes. (would a cheesy smily face make this any more palpable for you?) :)

~String

Oh goody, they've WARNED you about me?:p

And yet I've seen enough of them in my short time here -- some with quite high post counts. Not that I'm mentioning anyone specific. :D

We take our weeding very seriously.;)

And talk about painting a picture based on a fraction of the information. Having family problems?:p

Who doesn't? Though, the guys tend to congergate together at the poker tournaments... and the ladies in their own group.

Okay... okay... enough already.

Sam... really. Let's debate the topic at hand.

~String

And yet I've seen enough of them in my short time here -- some with quite high post counts. Not that I'm mentioning anyone specific. :D
who? sam? the post whore ammonia hole?

Which is precisely why all I've read in threads, and been PM'ed regarding you, is nothing but insults and jokes. (would a cheesy smily face make this any more palpable for you?) :)

~String

no...im pretty sure they were talking about me.
:p

Who doesn't? Though, the guys tend to congergate together at the poker tournaments... and the ladies in their own group.

Okay... okay... enough already.

Sam... really. Let's debate the topic at hand.

~String

Sure, why is that the intellectual founding fathers who promised liberty and pursuit of happiness did not recognise the blacks as humans?

who? sam? the post whore ammonia hole?

What chili have you got up your arse now?:bugeye:

Its confusing enough that Americans change the meanings of words without adding new ones all the time. Libertarian?

Libertarian is a new word for you? Then I suppose you're going to have as many misunderstandings with me as with String.

What chili have you got up your arse now?:bugeye:
i'm on the rag, wanna chew on it?

Libertarian is a new word for you? Then I suppose you're going to have as many misunderstandings with me as with String.
Whats a Libertarian?

Libertarian is a new word for you? Then I suppose you're going to have as many misunderstandings with me as with String.

Why don't you have a multiparty system instead of a choice between a turd and a douche? Libertarianism is a socially dysfunctional system.

Sure, why is that the intellectual founding fathers who promised liberty and pursuit of happiness did not recognise the blacks as humans?

Good point indeed.

A black scar on our nation's history. One that is an important lesson. The one's who were anti-slavery were (justifiably) concerned about keeping the Union together. Even the anti-slavery bunch were still human and were men of their time-- they may have hated slavery, but they hardly (except for Adams) thought of Black men as the White man's equal. Had they made slavery an issue, the union would have split (at best) into two... and at worst, into thirteen... or more. They did the right thing... and sadly, the ONLY thing they could do at the time.

~String

i'm on the rag, wanna chew on it?

So am I; wanna compare clots?

IT SEEMS TO ME.... MOST OF YOU... CARE ONLY ABOUT PASSING THE TIME IN IDLE CHIT CHAT..... rather than contemplating your freedom, and how you can get it back...

you can get it back... YOUR CONSTITUIONAL FREEDOMS.

-MT

Whats a Libertarian?

They are the guys who thinks their life belongs only to them, but want to take advantage of everything the society offers anyway.

Whats a Libertarian?

I'm not REALLY a Libertarian... they are TOO anti Federal government. Classic Liberal.

Classic Liberal = limited central government ("Republican"), strong national defense ("Republican"), limited involvement in other nation's affairs ("Democrat"), EXTREME funding of education ("Democrat") and a liberal approach to the human experience ("Democrat").

~String

They are the guys who thinks their life belongs only to them, but want to take advantage of everything the society offers anyway.
I was hoping for a Libertarian to explain it. Isn't Fraggle Rocker a Libertarian?

IT SEEMS TO ME.... MOST OF YOU... CARE ONLY ABOUT PASSING THE TIME IN IDLE CHIT CHAT..... rather than contemplating your freedom, and how you can get it back...

you can get it back... YOUR CONSTITUIONAL FREEDOMS.

-MT

You're right. We're a lost cause. Stop waisting your time.

Go bug someone else.

~String

They are the guys who thinks their life belongs only to them, but want to take advantage of everything the society offers anyway.
much like indias corrupt government and torturing police force ay sam?

I'm not REALLY a Libertarian... they are TOO anti Federal government. Classic Liberal.

Classic Liberal = limited central government ("Republican"), strong national defense ("Republican"), limited involvement in other nation's affairs ("Democrat"), EXTREME funding of education ("Democrat") and a liberal approach to the human experience ("Democrat").

~String

Libertarian favor low taxes?

I'm not REALLY a Libertarian... they are TOO anti Federal government. Classic Liberal.

Classic Liberal = limited central government ("Republican"), strong national defense ("Republican"), limited involvement in other nation's affairs ("Democrat"), EXTREME funding of education ("Democrat") and a liberal approach to the human experience ("Democrat").

~String

Hey thats me!:p

Arrghh!:eek:

Damnit... I have to go to dinner with the rents (Mexican... eeesh). BRB in 'bout 2 hours.

~String

I was hoping for a Libertarian to explain it. Isn't Fraggle Rocker a Libertarian?

Yeah and although he is all for liberty, he still has opinions on limits for other people.:bugeye:

Hey thats me!:p

Arrghh!:eek:

See ther, kitten, we can agree. ;)

~String

Heres a question for Mosheh, String and Liege:

Doesnt the constitution say that ONLY congress can declare a state of war?

If so, do you think this should be revised so that the President can declare war on his own.

And how would 'war' be defined?

Are Vietnam and Iraq cases of war or 'police action'?


From Wiki:
"Since the Second World War, formal declarations of war have increasingly become a rarity. Instead, nations involved in military conflict (especially the major-power nations) often attempt to justify their conduct by fighting the war under the auspices of a "police action".

Who do Libertarians vote for? Is there a Libertarian party?

I was hoping for a Libertarian to explain it. Isn't Fraggle Rocker a Libertarian?

im a libertarian, man.

i dont like beating a dead horse though, so im not going to lay it all out.

your right to travel, has been changed into driving priviledges...

every year, the regulations and restrictions on all of us, only grows.... and grows....

all of this... is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.


Good point.

Mosheh, this is exactly the sort of situation I was talking about, when I spoke of the danger of people letting their freedom slip away because they don't understand how that freedom is supposed to be, how it was originally conceived and understood.

Heres a question for Mosheh, String and Leige:

Doesnt the constitution say that ONLY congress can declare a state of war?

If so, do you think this should be revised so that the President can declare war on his own.

And how would 'war' be defined?

Are Vietnam and Iraq cases of war or 'police action'?
iraq. man what can i say about that fucked up god awful mess.

the only thing i'm willing to say is the president, and to a lesser extent the congress, was caught with their pants down.
and i'm not talking about 911.

Good point.

Mosheh, this is exactly the sort of situation I was talking about, when I spoke of the danger of people letting their freedom slip away because they don't understand how that freedom is supposed to be, how it was originally conceived and understood.
another good point is that the constitution doesn't gaurantee you a car.
it doesn't say you have a right to own one.

Why don't you have a multiparty system instead of a choice between a turd and a douche? Libertarianism is a socially dysfunctional system.


I DO favor a multi-party system. What does that have to do with your view of libertarianism as a "dysfunctional system"?

Yeah and although he is all for liberty, he still has opinions on limits for other people.:bugeye:


Libertarians believe in limits too; where did you get the idea they don't? But those limits are quite narrow. A person should be able to do whatever he wants, up to the point where his actions infringe directly on someone else's freedom to do whatever they want. Those are the only limits generally acceptable to libertarians.

Who do Libertarians vote for? Is there a Libertarian party?


Yes there is a Libertarian Party, but it's small and without any power. There are some libertarians who vote Republican, and others who vote Democrat, based on their own interpretations of libertarianism. Then there are others who vote on a case-by-case basis for the candidate who more closely fits their ideals.

EXACTLY... THE FED... is not supposed to have any powers to rule over or pass laws governing free men.

in the world today, we have sovereign nations.. free to fully own their land.. to build and have any weapons... who are free to build any fortress or army... anything... a free nation... a sovereign nation.

in the constitution... we are all supposed to be sovereign...

all of us are supposed to be like kings... on our own little nations.

you nation may only be 5 acres.... but its yours.. and no one can take it, and the government must... must... compensate you for it, if it needs it.


the state of emergency in 1933, which is still in effect, allows the fed to put all the rules and restrictions aside... for as long as it wants to.

it was then... THEY THROUGH OUT THE MAGNA CARTA.. and gave of contract courts... but tricked us all into becoming 14th ammendment citizens... i.e.. all new children born... became 14th ammendment citizens..
citizens... which clearly states in the 14th ammendment.. are under the juridiction of that state and have NO RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can reject citizenship today...

but the problem is.... the cop on the street wont respect it... and will still arrest you...

that is the problem... and the focus of the battle for freedom.

-MT

another good point is that the constitution doesn't gaurantee you a car.
it doesn't say you have a right to own one.


Who said it does?

But this brings up what is, to me, THE most important thing about the Constitution. It is NOT a document that lists all the rights we have (they are far too numerous to list; only a few of the most important ones are specifically included). It is a document which lists the powers the government has and does not have. If some certain right is not mentioned in the document, it is assumed that the people possess that right by default. This is clearly explained in the 9th Amendment.

EXACTLY... THE FED... is not supposed to have any powers to rule over or pass laws governing free men.
wrong.
the constitution specifically states the congress can enact laws.
the judiciary enforces those laws.

you can reject citizenship today...
yes.

but the problem is.... the cop on the street wont respect it... and will still arrest you...
yes, for being an alien. quite possibly an illegal one.

Heres a question for Mosheh, String and Liege:

Doesnt the constitution say that ONLY congress can declare a state of war?

If so, do you think this should be revised so that the President can declare war on his own.

And how would 'war' be defined?

Are Vietnam and Iraq cases of war or 'police action'?



I think Iraq and Vietnam were wars, yes. To call them anything else is simply political spin.

As far as I am aware, the Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. Congress declares it, the President conducts it. Separation of powers, checks and balances. And so no, I definitely do NOT think this should be changed to give that power to the executive branch.

Who said it does?

But this brings up what is, to me, THE most important thing about the Constitution. It is NOT a document that lists all the rights we have (they are far too numerous to list; only a few of the most important ones are specifically included). It is a document which lists the rights the government has and does not have. If some certain right is not mentioned in the document, it is assumed that the people possess that right by default. This is clearly explained in the 9th Amendment.
good point.

but about the car . . .
i would believe that a person should be found competent to drive one, wouldn't you? this implies some kind of license.

loepold99 is an example....

of a willing slave... he doesnt want to see anything that disturbs his safe world view.....

the fact that everyones incometax is used to pay off national debt and the interest thereof... doesnt bother him..

it doesnt dawn on him that we are all paying out of our pockets the interest.. i.e.. profit... of all the possibly foriegn investors who now own the usa fed.

he doesnt care that no american knows who owns the fed..

and he doesnt want to know or care.

he is a willing slave.

-MT

loepold99 is an example....

of a willing slave...


everyone that rebuts you is a slave aren't they mosheh?

still looking for radicals to join your cult?

no... but there is a difference, in being the kind of guy, like you... who willingly and wantenly likes it the way it is...

then there are others... who recognise that something is terribly wrong...

our society... is not the noble and free one it claims to be...

and the constitution... the idea of limited government allowing for a free society is long gone... replaced by an unlimited government.


some people are bothered by this.... they are un-willing slaves.

some people like you.. dont see the problem... you are a willing slave.

-MT

good point.

but about the car . . .
i would believe that a person should be found competent to drive one, wouldn't you? this implies some kind of license.


Oh certainly, I'm not saying some rights shouldn't have some kind of regulation if they involve a real danger to other people (part of those acceptable libertarian limits).

I was simply using your comment about what is or isn't listed in the Constitution to make a point.

Also, so often I hear people make comments like "driving isn't a right, it's a priveledge!" I think this is exactly wrong; it IS a right, albeit a regulated one. This is one of the frustrating misunderstandings a lot of people have these days about the nature of rights.

wrong.
the constitution specifically states the congress can enact laws.
the judiciary enforces those laws.

Incorrect. The Judiciary interprets the law and the Executive inforces the law.

(Oh... dinner sucked, btw. Nice to see the rents tho)

~String

some people like you.. dont see the problem...

Come, come, Mosheh...

Look, just because we aren't insensed with emotion about the situation, DOES NOT mean we don't get it or care. Talk... is talk. And little more. Tell me... what ACTION have you taken to remidy the situation?

~String

Doesnt the constitution say that ONLY congress can declare a state of war?

As Commander-in-Chief, the prez can order troops anywhere he likes. Military action is his thing, but the Congress funds it.

Teddy Roosevelt stands out as one of the more striking historical examples. He ordered four battleship squadrons on a global circumnavigation, to demonstrate the the US could project her military anywhere. Part of the talk softly and carry a big stick doctrine.

At the time, however, Congress had only funded the expedition for a voyage half way around the world. In an act of brinkmanship, the Chief ordered the fleet off anyway, then informed Congress if they wanted to see the ships again, they'd have to pony up.

Teddy was one of my favorite presidents.

~String

I think Iraq and Vietnam were wars, yes. To call them anything else is simply political spin.

As far as I am aware, the Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. Congress declares it, the President conducts it. Separation of powers, checks and balances. And so no, I definitely do NOT think this should be changed to give that power to the executive branch.
Ok, but theres no point in having laws about who can declare or fund a war unless there is a clear definition of what war is.

Congress has not declared war since the 1930s-40s and yet the US has fought three disastrous wars, first in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.

How should war be defined?

Is military action against a terrorist group a war, or can a war only be fought against a sovereign nation?

Ok, but theres no point in having laws about who can declare or fund a war unless there is a clear definition of what war is.



That's a very good point, and one I haven't ever thought about too much. You're right, we should have a clear definition of various levels of military action. I don't think the Constitution gives any such definitions. I wonder if the Founders had any comments on this in ther personal writings? I confess to having no idea.

Teddy was one of my favorite presidents.

~String


I used to be quite fond of him as well. That was until I learned of his characterization of Thomas Paine as a "dirty little atheist." My respect for him deflated quickly.

That's a very good point, and one I haven't ever thought about too much. You're right, we should have a clear definition of various levels of military action. I don't think the Constitution gives any such definitions. I wonder if the Founders had any comments on this in ther personal writings? I confess to having no idea.

I, too, agree. For some reason, I think that sending troops overseas should have a bit more oversight than just a presidential decree... but then again, congress DOES have the ability to cut funding. But that almost never works, because congress never wants to look unpatriotic.

I used to be quite fond of him as well. That was until I learned of his characterization of Thomas Paine as a "dirty little atheist." My respect for him deflated quickly.

Eh... no one's perfect. Focus on the important stuff: what he did. When you focus too much on what someone does, you end up getting disappointed.

~String

Talk... is talk. And little more. Tell me... what ACTION have you taken to remidy the situation?

~String
a little insight:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62668

but then again, congress DOES have the ability to cut funding. But that almost never works, because congress never wants to look unpatriotic.
Hence the neccessity of making it look like America is under attack...as in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Congress and the weight of public opinion are far less likely to get behind any aggressive military campaign unless it has the perception of being defensive.

a little insight:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62668

Leo... is there a Readers Digest version of that posting?

I'm not denying that much of what this dude[ette?] says, but I'm not going to waste my time on reading another rant. I mean... c'mon, give us the condensed version. It's a website for debate and discussion, not for posting disertations (as far as I can see).

Are you trying to defend Mosheh by that post (and if so, please explain) or oppose him/her (also, if so, explain)?

~String

Are you trying to defend Mosheh by that post (and if so, please explain) or oppose him/her (also, if so, explain)?

~String
if i'm not mistaken mosheh proposes a new world order and sends that proposal to the UN.
he never heats from them so he (supposedly) goes there.
they wouldn't even see him.

if i'm not mistaken mosheh proposes a new world order and sends that proposal to the UN.
he never heats from them so he (supposedly) goes there.
they wouldn't even see him.

There's a good reason why. By the general rules of the UN, it cannot meet unilaterally with the citizens of any member nation except under extreem circumstances. THAT would, rightly, infringe upon the soverignty of the member nations. It's not that they didn't care (which, I'm certain, they didn't), it's just that there isn't a legal framework for meeting with individual petitioners. It's a body of nations and represents those nations for international affairs... it is not a body that was meant to represent "the people", and was explicitly created that way. Moreover, (and to Mosheh's disappointment), the UN is not (again, except under rare circumstances) allowed to deal directly with anybody who is not a diplomat.

Not defending that reality... just spelling it out. Mosheh needs to go through the [pointless] process of contacting his Senator or the State Department directly (or, if not a citizen of the USA-- he needs to contact whatever leagal governing body that handles foreign affairs and/or the equivelent of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs... etc), who would then [but not really... only in "theory"] transmit said proposition for review in the General Assembly.

Good luck [queue: whimsical laughter].

~String

The Constitution does not specify how a declaration of War should be Framed, so in reading the AUMF, what does it specify:

1. Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

2. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So there we have it folks Congress gave the President the Go ahead to conduct a War.

The resolution is below so read and tell us were it doesn't authorize the President to use military force as he deems fit.




Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]


107th CONGRESS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

The Congress was much more detailed in this one, But it determines the same thing about Iraq, and that is that the President has the authority to go to War to enforce all U.N. resolutions:

661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

So again show use were it didn't authorize the President to go to WAR?

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00001 Fmt 6579 Sfmt 6579 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
Public Law 107–243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence
reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs
threatened vital United States interests and international
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations’’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security
of the United States and international peace and security in
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable
breach of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace
Oct. 16, 2002
[H.J. Res. 114]
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 116 STAT. 1499
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate,
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other
nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by
the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities
that threaten international peace and security, including the
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660,
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1500 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress,
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work
for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable’’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue
to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in
the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf
region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
Authorization for
Use of Military
Force Against
Iraq Resolution
of 2002.
50 USC 1541
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 116 STAT. 1501
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed,
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338).
President.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:44 Oct 23, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00243 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL243.107 APPS06 PsN: PUBL243
116 STAT. 1502 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
Æ
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this
joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress
pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution
(Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as
a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in
the report required by this section, such report shall be considered
as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
Approved October 16, 2002.

the us is not a democarcy we are a republic

the us is not a democarcy we are a republic


Wow, what a deep and insightful addition to this thread. I'm sure no one has yet made this point. Maybe reading the thread should be a prerequisite to posting in it? :rolleyes:

Yes we know America is a republic. Yet it is still appropriate for the concept of democracy to come up. A republic is a far more democratic form of government than a dictatorship, or a monarchy, or almost anything else.

Thanks for stating the obvious Leige.

Thanks for stating the obvious Leige.


Don't you think it's ironic that that was basically what I was telling the other guy? Or is irony as difficult to understand as evolution?

ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS....

Amendment IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.


THIS AMMENDMENT... has been circumvented.

circumvented... by the war and emergency powers act.

ALL CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL.


-MT

Another 9th Amendment admirer.... good... very good.

Another 9th Amendment admirer.... good... very good.

It's vague, and certainly doesn't state exactly WHO has the right to define those rights, therefore, it is assumed that all three branches have the right... but most especially, our lovely Supreme Court.

Krytocracy... what the Founders intended!

~String

NO.... it states, that no law can be passed which serves to remove the freedoms put forth in the constitution....
the bill of rights...

cannot be circumvented.


but has been..

and we all have been robbed.

-MT

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

This does two things:

1. Gives the president the option of using whatever force HE deems neccessary and appropriate...including nuclear weapons I assume. It does NOT say he cant use nuclear weapons.

2. Gives the president the option of using military force against anyone HE determines to be involved in the 9/11 attacks...it does NOT say he must prove this determination to congress. In other words, if Bush determines that Denmark was involved he can go ahead and attack them.

How freely Congress has GIVEN UP its traditional veto over the White House and Pentagon...and its responsibility to the American citizenry.

It's vague, and certainly doesn't state exactly WHO has the right to define those rights, therefore, it is assumed that all three branches have the right... but most especially, our lovely Supreme Court.



Gonna have to disagree on that, String.

The whole point of the 9th Amendment is that the rights of the people don't have to be defined, because they are theoretically infinite in number. The only thing that has to be defined is the power allowed to government. Any freedom the government isn't given specific power to restrict automatically belongs to the people. This is the entire point of the Amendment.

Gonna have to disagree on that, String.

The whole point of the 9th Amendment is that the rights of the people don't have to be defined, because they are theoretically infinite in number. The only thing that has to be defined is the power allowed to government. Any freedom the government isn't given specific power to restrict automatically belongs to the people. This is the entire point of the Amendment.

Maybe I should clarify my point. I wasn't attempting to state that those rights needed to be clarified in order to exist, but in a court of law, the "Enumeration Clause" (Ammendment IX) would allow for the expansion of what are considered CONSTITUTIONAL rights based upon what the court sees as an activity that fits under that umbrella, especially when that supposed right comes into conflict with a Federal Law that is presumed to be acceptable under the constitution under the "Necessary and Proper" clause (Section I, Article 8) of the Constitution.

Both are ambiguous and undefined for good reason: The founders KNEW that they could never predict EVERY sutation that would arise in the future, that's why they gave the Constitution the ability to be plastic (in parts). But, unfortunationly some of the vague areas brush up against eachother, and therefore MUST be defined by act of law, executive order, or (most commonly) by judicial review.

Don't know if that clares up my point. Thoughts?

~String

Don't know if that clares up my point. Thoughts?


That clears it up perfectly. Thanks. You may keep your special Libertarian Club Decoder Ring. :D

That clears it up perfectly. Thanks. You may keep your special Libertarian Club Decoder Ring. :D

What... you never got yours?

~String

What... you never got yours?


I have one on each hand. ;)

we have been in a state of emergency since 1933.

it is with this state of emergency... that the fed... gained all its illegal powers...

the power to make social security.. and medicare.
the power to form an illegal FBI.
THE power to create 66 million statutory laws to control us. all illegal.

the power... to squash all our constituional rights....


why??

because with the state of emergency.. the constitution is NO LONGER the limiting document for government powers.. its now.. just a guide.


we all got robbed..

by a state of emergency... the government.. refuses to end.

if they ended it... all the illegal things the fed does will end.

all the 66 million statute laws will vanish.
the FBI will be dismantled.
and the IRS... becomes a lame duck with no power.


if you guys had any balls.. you would join the sovereignty movement.

you would join with the american independant, or constitution party.

-MT

if you guys had any balls.. you would join the sovereignty movement.

you would join with the american independant, or constitution party.

-MT

You're right. No balls. Move along.

~String

Mosheh, you have said some things in this thread that I agree with, but now the time has come for some questions.

the power to form an illegal FBI.


I may be missing something... what's illegal about the FBI? After all, one of the federal branches of the government is the executive, tasked with enforcing the law. How can it do that without law enforcement agencies?

THE power to create 66 million statutory laws to control us.


I know there are A LOT of laws.... but 66 million seems like a really high number. Do you have some verification of this number? Not that it truly matters, but I'm just curious.

if you guys had any balls.. you would join the sovereignty movement.

you would join with the american independant, or constitution party.


You're kidding right? The Constitution Party is run by the "Christian nation" crowd. This is from their mission statement on their website:

It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.


So no thanks, I won't be joining them anytime soon.

Mosheh, you have said some things in this thread that I agree with, but now the time has come for some questions.




I may be missing something... what's illegal about the FBI? After all, one of the federal branches of the government is the executive, tasked with enforcing the law. How can it do that without law enforcement agencies?

tHE FBI is not constituional... the fed.. is not supposed to have its own police force... at all.
the FBI.. was created in 1933.


I know there are A LOT of laws.... but 66 million seems like a really high number. Do you have some verification of this number? Not that it truly matters, but I'm just curious.

yes... 66 million... look it up.
before 1933... we had the common law... from the Magna carta... which makes it clear... NO HARM.. NO FOUL..
i.e... if you havent hurt anyone.. or damaged their property, or denied others their rights.. then you have NOT commited a CRIME...
but today... there are 66 million laws. saying what you can and cannot do...

why should a free man be arrested for having marijuana in his pocket...???
he hasnt hurt anyone... he has not broken the common law.

he broke a statute... a law made.. specifcally to deny us, all... of our common law freedom to do as we please.
federal statutes... are constitutioinally illegal.

because they serve to conflict with our bill or rights.

this is clear evidense... the fed.. is no longer limited by the constitution... at all.... they have stollen our bill of rights.


You're kidding right? The Constitution Party is run by the "Christian nation" crowd. This is from their mission statement on their website:

yes... they are a christian group.. that is their one flaw... they forget to take religion out of politics.
they need fresh blood like you and me.


So no thanks, I won't be joining them anytime soon.

remmember ruby ridge... remmember wacco... remmember the freemen.

they all got killed... for doing it alone.

you cannot stand alone against an illegal government.

-MT

You answer his questions with that? Another rant? C'mon!

~String

Mosheh, can you point me to the section of the Constitution that disallows federal law enforcement agenies? I admit to not knowing what it says on the subject, so help me out here.

And I did some googling and can't find anything about the number of federal laws. Can you provide any links that support your figure?

Even if you're adding all federal, state, and local laws, I still find that number staggeringly high and hard to believe.

OK LOOK..... fellas... ladies...

i am not up to the task, at this time... but let me introduce someone better than me...

A senator...

The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner’s report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not "money?’ The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principle.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)

"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it’s easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don’t more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back your Country."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Image: United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303




-MT

James Traficant
Isn't that guy in prison for accepting gifts(bribes) from the Youngstown mob or something?

YES... after going on the floor and putting this into the public record.

(I HEARD IT WAS fraud in campaign financing......)

but you need to remember.. the state and federal attorney generals, all work for the fed... and they deside what cases to persue.

they desided to pursue James traficcant.


at any time they can focus on even you.

but they usually push important political people around for the fed.

-MT

the us has been is and will probably always be a republic not a democracy