Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

Picking a U.S. President

Every four years, American voters head to the polls to elect a president and a vice president. Yet those votes are just part of a detailed system known as the Electoral College, which is used by the U.S. to determine its executive leaders; a system set up by the Founding Fathers of our nation.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electoral votes divided among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected.

The number of electoral votes each state receives ranges from 3 to 55 based on the number of Congressional seats the state holds, which is essentially linked to the population of the state. The District of Columbia gets 3 votes because the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution grants it the same number votes as the least populated state in the union. The territories of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, etc. get no Electoral College votes.

The Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

The voting public’s ballots make up what is known as the “popular vote”, and in 48 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in a state will receive all of that state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes among candidates through their state’s system for ‘proportional allocation’ of votes.

In the rare event that no candidate gets the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the office, the House of Representatives elects the president from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state only gets one vote, so it could be a long process and full of contention among the state representatives to decide on that vote.  That has never happened in U.S. history. 

However, in the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.

Over the decades the discussion of doing away with the Electoral College has arisen often, but after studying the process, one sees that there is a reason the Founding Fathers put it in place. Little that our Founding Fathers put in place has needed to be altered or changed. Many feel that these scholarly men were inspired and guided by a higher power while creating Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

The Choice for 2012:

In some elections there hardly seems to be a difference between the two tickets and in others the two candidates and their party’s platforms could not be further apart. That is where we find ourselves this time, the election of 2012.  In recent years the two parties and their platforms have generally moved farther and farther apart.  America has become a ‘house’ divided which is at the heart of many of our problems.  And in the election of 2012 the top of the two tickets represent two completely different philosophies of government, leadership styles and experience.  Yet, had the Republicans chosen someone like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin or even Ron Paul the differences would be even greater and that point should appeal to many of the Independents!

2012 is perhaps the most important election in America’s history and definitely of our lifetimes because it is a defining election. 2008 was an election that will go into the history books because it proved America had moved beyond the question whether Americans would ever elect a president of color.  The race also included only the second women and first Republican woman ever to be on a National ticket.  But, 2012 will be the election that will decide whether America will continue down the entitlement path, becoming a Nanny State, where Americans choose Big Brother and less individual freedom and opportunity in order to guarantee themselves benefits and cultural equality, like Europe has over the past two decades, a socialistic democracy type of system over a return to American Exceptionalism that guarantees everyone an equal playing field but not governmental mandates and guarantees of welfare or equality and is based on the foundation and documents our Founding Fathers left this country.

So before you vote, if you have not already, make sure that you really know what you are voting for.

A vote for Barack Obama, a community organizer, is a vote for more government control in every aspect of our lives. Four more years of his administration will take us from the position of strength, though waning, on the world scene to one of weakness because his style of leadership will take you and your children… and grandchildren further down the road to greater debt owed to foreign powers who will then control us which will not lead us to a domestic recovery or prosperity. The job numbers we have now or worse will become the norm and so will our dependence on the government and in-turn the government’s control over us.

A vote for Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and a man with experience in turning things around, like the failing Utah Olympics into a financial success and win for America, will turn around our economy, put Americans back to work and as the our debt declines our position in the world will be revived as number one. He will also overturn ObamaCare and will replace it with real reform… something that will work and that we can afford as a nation.  He learned from Romneycare and believes in states rights and individual choice.

And another thing to consider is that we now know, thanks to a few patriotic insiders and a few reporters who are doing their job instead of promoting their political agenda, that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, VP Joe Biden and other leaders in the Obama Administration knew in advance that a terror attack was coming on 9.11.2012; They knew that Ambassador Stevens and others at the Libya Embassy/Consulate in Benghazi were asking for more help with security because they knew they could not defend themselves against an attack, and that the aforementioned leaders watched the terror attack in ‘real-time’ on a video from fed directly from the Consulate and did nothing. Instead they actually told teams and individuals who were in a place to help, to stand down while they watched our Ambassador and his team being murdered.

Can you really trust your life and the life of your children, grandchildren and the future of this country to a Commander in Chief who watches his Ambassador and other Americans being murdered and does nothing and then lies to their families and to you, to us… the American people? What else is he lying about? Think about it before casting your vote.

23 million people are out of work, our national debt has grown to a number that most of us never could have imagined  and our economy is worse under President Obama… and he has no new plan for the next four years; America cannot afford ObamaCare and there are hidden surprises in the Affordable Care Act that you won’t like… And then there is Benghazigate that Team Obama is doing their best to bury until after the election, as the Obama-Hillary foreign policy is unraveling.  Will you let them ‘cool out’ your vote?

"Democracy, as well as the survival of our Republic, demands an educated and informed electorate"

Know why you are voting for the candidate, party and issue you have chosen and the truth behind the issues…

Ask Marion~

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Whether Romney or Obama wins tomorrow… America will begin down a new path, which path is in the American voters’ hands.

h/t to NARA – the Electoral College

Related:

References

Read The Federalist Papers at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html for the founders' views on the Electoral College:

• Alexander Hamilton's design for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68
• James Madison's views on the republican form of government in Federalist No. 10

Search the writings of Thomas Jefferson for his views on the Presidency (especially, Letter to George Hay, August 17, 1823) at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Technorati Tags: history,informed choices,U.S. Presidents,former presidents,elections,Election 2012,2012 Election,Electoral College,The Choice,informed voters,U.S. Constituion,educate yourself,U.S. Elections,picking a president,popular vote,23rd Amendment. Mitt Romney,Barack Obama,Romney-Ryan,Obama-Biden,Federalist Papers,U.S. territories,voter fraud,civics

Forum – Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

JoshuaPundit on Oct 29 2012 at 12:36 am - The Council Forum

Last week, the New York State Appeals Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.

The ruling itself was based on a very narrow criteria, since there was a plaintiff that obviously suffered financial damages because of a spousal deduction she would otherwise have received on the estate tax on her deceased partner’s estate as a result. But with the Supreme Court set to rule on the Constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, this week the Council addresses the question: Is DOMA unconstitutional? How will the recent ruling affect coming Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage?:

The Independent Sentinel: I don’t want the federal government involved in this at all. I prefer it be a states rights issue. I feel the same way about abortion. I am opposed to big government and I am against changing the constitution for social issues.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional but I think it should be found Constitutional on the basis of states rights and the right of people to choose.

I will become concerned about this issue if it begins to affect freedom of religion. Religions that only marry one man and one woman must be allowed to do so or I don’t think we can call ourselves free any longer.

I believe the only civil rights issue in this country is the abuse of African-Americans through slavery and decades of oppression. No other issue, not even an important social choice issue, should take away from that.

The Colossus of Rhodey: It seems the main problem the recent court ruling against DOMA has is with the law’s Section 3 which defines marriage *federally* as between a man and a woman. The ruling invoked “equal protection;” if the SCOTUS rules as the circuit court did, it will enshrine a right to collect benefits (from the feds) for legally married gay couples. BUT — it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the rest of DOMA would be stricken. The Act allows states to decide whether they want to recognize gay marriages (and those performed in other states), and a cursory reading of the Constitution’s Article IV shows that this part of the law *should be* constitutional re: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Clause notes that “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” In other words, those in favor of striking the entire law would have to demonstrate how Congress does *not* have the right to prescribe how its laws are enacted, or, in this case, why another state would *not* have the right to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state.

It will be difficult to guess what the SCOTUS will rule. If the states still get to decide the question of marriage, then could a gay couple still be able to collect federal benefits from a non-gay marriage state (if they were “married,” in a state which allowed such, but they didn’t actually *reside* in such a state)? If so, how and why? Or, can only those who were [gay] married in a state which allowed such unions be permitted to collect such benefits?

The Glittering Eye: There are two ways of answering that question. The answer in law is absolutely, positively not. But the practical answer is different. The practical answer is that whatever the currently sitting Supreme Court justices say is unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

I’m guessing that, considering that there’s a majority of sexual libertarians on the court,the present Court will strike down the DOMA.

The Noisy Room: Yes, DOMA is unconstitutional for the simple reason that its foundation premise, that government has any business moderating marriage, is fundamentally broken. DOMA falls into that broader fascist category of “good ideas enforced at gun point.” If a constitutional foundation can be found and established for the concept that government is somehow the appropriate arbiter of the act of marriage at all, then a case can be made for DOMA because to the degree that government brokers marriage, government must then define it. However, the constitution offers no support for what was at the time a cultural and religious construct which more modernly, has been annexed as one of the “proper functions” of government.

I don’t see any constitutional support for it and in fact, it plays into the concept that government can replace religion. And this is one of the greasier slopes on which one can embark. This goes further to a broader premise that government somehow owns “citizens,” or as the British prefer to call them, “subjects.” As the premise broadens, it encroaches on education (all your kids are belong to us) and “health and welfare.” We have to keep you healthy so you are productive, our revenue depends on it. This, then, “logically” flows into mandated morality, and while actual crime is a province of government, what you eat for breakfast, how you iron your shirts and with whom you spend your nights is not. See Atlas Shrugged.

So, although this is a blatant attempt to pander to the gay community by Obama, DOMA is not constitutional in my viewpoint. Marriage is a personal (or religious) act, not a government province.

Bookworm Room: Yes, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not contemplate marriage at a federal level. For that reason, it is a matter that, technically speaking, should be left to the states. Having said that, let’s get to the modern wrinkles. When the Constitution was ratified, the Founders could not have imagined same-sex marriage. It did not exist at the time. Had the notion existed, the Founders might have chosen to address marriage in the Constitution for one very specific reason: The full faith and credit clause, which obligates each state to recognize the duly passed laws of the other states. The problem with laws that provide fundamentally different definitions of marriage (such as those allowing polygamy or same sex marriage) is that, as people move from one state to another, they may be legally married in State A, but not in State B. Any subsequent property, child custody, or third party contract disputes become a nightmare.

With new definitions of marriage never imagined by the Founders, the correct way to deal with the issue is through a Constitutional amendment. If I could draft the amendment, I would remove “marriage” from government control and leave it solely to religious institutions to “marry” people. Government should have power over “civil unions,” and that power should be exercised in whatever way is most beneficial to advance state goals of economic stability, generational property transfers, and the overall best situation for children. Civil unions could certainly encompass same sex couples. I would be loath to extend civil unions to polygamy, though, because of the problems with economic stability and generational property transfers. (England, which legally recognizes polygamous marriages from Muslim countries, demonstrates that, in a Western culture, it’s hard for a single man to support multiple women. These polygamous families end up using welfare disproportionately.)

I’m deeply concerned that, if same sex “marriage” becomes a constitutional right, we’ll have a major constitutional clash between church and state, one that makes the current fight over funding abortion look like a kindergarten party. Think of it: In the Catholic faith, marriage is a sacrament. Can you imagine what will happen to the First Amendment freedom of religion if it crashes headlong into some new amendment mandating gay “marriage.” If, however, the state passes an amendment recognizing civil unions, churches can continue to marry whomever their doctrine recognizes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Technorati Tags: DOMA,New York,Defense of Marriage Act,unconstitutional,law,marriage,Watcher's Council,bloggers,blogosphere,watch the other hand,educate yourself,alternative media,news,news nuggets,US Constitution,same sex marriage,Founding Fathers,states rights,you be the judge,First Amendment

Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School

Video:  Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School

Tracking School Children With RFID Tags? It’s All About the Benjamins

Student body ID cards with RFID-embedded chips. Image: Northside Independent School District

Just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture mandates Radio Frequency Identification Device chips to monitor livestock, a Texas school district just begun implanting the devices on student identification cards to monitor pupils’ movements on campus, and to track them as they come and go from school.

Tagging school children with RFID chips is uncommon, but not new. A federally funded preschool in Richmond, California, began embedding RFID chips in students’ clothing in 2010. And an elementary school outside of Sacramento, California, scrubbed a plan in 2005 amid a parental uproar. And a Houston, Texas, school district began using the chips to monitor students on 13 campuses in 2004.

It was only a matter of time. Radio frequency identification devices are a daily part of the electronic age, and are fast becoming a part of passports, libraries and payment cards, and are widely expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods.

And it appears that the educational move to Big Brother-style monitoring is motivated mainly by money, despite privacy and health concerns.

Two schools at the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio began issuing the RFID-chip-laden student-body cards when classes began last Monday. Like most state-financed schools, their budgets are tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil, because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there.

But with the RFID tracking, students not at their desk but tracked on campus are counted as being in school that day, and the district receives its daily allotment for that student.

“What we have found, they are there, they’re in the building and not in their chairs. They are in the cafeteria, with counselors, in stairwells or a variety of places, some legitimately and some not,” district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said in a telephone interview. “If they are on campus, we can legally count them present.”

The Spring Independent School District in Houston echoed the same theory when it announced results of its program in 2010. “RFID readers situated throughout each campus are used to identify where students are located in the building, which can be used to verify the student’s attendance for ADA funding and course credit purposes,” the district said.

But privacy groups are wary.

“We don’t think kids in schools should be treated like cattle,” Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said in a telephone interview. “We generally don’t like it. My take on RFID is it’s fine for products, but not so much for people. That’s one of the places where the lines need to be drawn. ”

But there appears to be dozens of companies who see no need to draw such a line and offer their RFID wares to monitor students in what is still a tiny but growing market. Among the biggest companies in the market: AT&T.

“One day soon, home room teachers in your local middle and high schools may stop scanning rows of desks and making each student yell out ‘Here!’ during a morning roll call. Instead, small cards, or tags, carried by each student will transmit a unique serial number via radio signal to an electronic reader near the school door,” AT&T says in its RFID-student advertising materials.

Gonzalez said there has been minimal parental and student opposition to the program at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School. The pilot project could expand to the Northside Independent School District’s 110 other schools, he said.

As for privacy, the system only monitors a student’s movements on campus. Once a student leaves campus, the chips no longer communicate with the district’s sensors.

He said the chips, which are not encrypted and chronicle students only by a serial number, also assist school officials to pinpoint where kids are at any given time, which he says is good for safety reasons. “With this RFID, we know exactly where the kid is within the school,” he said noting students are required to wear the ID on a lanyard at all times on campus.

The lack of encryption makes it not technically difficult to clone a card to impersonate a fellow student or to create a substitute card to play hooky, and makes the cards readable by anyone who wanted to install their own RFID reader, though all they would get is a serial number that’s correlated with the student’s ID number in a school database.

EPIC’s Rotenberg was among about two dozen health and privacy advocates who signed an August position paper blasting the use of RFID chips in schools.

The paper, which included signatures from the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and, among others, Big Brother Watch, said the RFID systems may have “potential” (.pdf) health risks, too.

“RFID systems emit electromagnetic radiation, and there are lingering questions about whether human health might be affected in environments where the reading devices are pervasive,” the paper said. “This concern and the dehumanizing effects of ubiquitous surveillance may place additional stress on students, parents, and teachers.”

Gonzalez said John Jay High has 200 surveillance cameras and Anson Jones Middle School, about 90.

“The kids,” he said, “are used to being monitored.”

Also Checkout: Parental Rights in the U.S. >> Go to http://parentalrights.org/

Related:

All Americans Will Receive a Microchip Implant in 2013 Per ObamaCare – Updated

RFID Chip for all Americans in 2013 as Part of ObamaCare… See Biden Telling Fed Judge He Will Have to Rule on Implanted Microchips

The ‘new chip’… especially for you!

Buying and Selling in an RFID Chip for the First Time – VeriChip Changes Its Name

RFID Clothing Tags Would Not Be Private Labels~

Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption

Technorati Tags: War on Christianity,Christians,Christianity,RFID chips,Texas,Big Brother,Constitution,parental rights,parenting,God,First Amendment,Bill of Rights,individual freedoms,freedom is not free,stand-up American,stand-up Christians,1984,Verichip in the Healthcare Bill,Verichip,Microchips,Smart Card

Panetta: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

Frightening… Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta tells Congress that they will get International, UN and global permission to defend the nation and its allies… and then will go to Congress and ‘tell them’ what they are doing… Hello?!? 100% unconstitutional and anti-American.  Wake-up people… they are telling you that they are moving us toward and Global New World Order and away from sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.

If you understand what this means and love your country and your freedom… you must vote in November 2012 and you must vote against the present administration or our life as we know will perish… and that is not an exaggeration!

Panetta: ‘International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military

Video: Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria

Related:

He said what?!? Panetta & international permission

Sovereignty, schmovereignty! Defense Secretary Leon Panetta showed just how ridiculous the foreign policy of this administration is. He admitted he will seek international permission before congressional approval on matters of foreign military affairs. Fits right in with Barack’s lean-forward foreign policy. Glenn Beck had the audio and reaction on radio yesterday.

Breitbart TV Video: Panetta: 'International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

The U.S. Constitution…

(The Constitution was read by our New Congress Today… and They Edited the Reading Because Obviously the Readers… Members or Our Congress Did Not (DO NOT) Understand It… Think About It)

They left out the 3/5’s clause out of consideration for Political Correctness. For those who understand history and the 3/5’s clause, they understand that it was a measure by which the Founding Father’s ensured that slavery would eventually be defeated; it made it an anti-slavery document, as Frederick Douglass learned when he set out to prove the opposite. If you are not familiar with the 3/5’s clause please read: Giants and Original Intent… and then explain it to your Congressman and Senator. The Congress also did not read the 18^th Amendment about prohibition, but read the 21st Amendment reinstating drinking… why? The two need to be read together as well as the 3/5’s Clause to understand the process, the thought process as well as see the scars of our nation’s journey. The same sanitation is going on with our classics. Books like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer teach lessons that our children now cannot read. (Read it with your children and make sure you read an original version or at least an annotated version: The Annotated Huckleberry Finn which leaves room for discussions).

The U.S. Constitution

As the 112^th Congress of the United States House of Representatives takes it’s Oath to God to uphold and defend the Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and domestic the first on a long list of orders to be fulfilled is the actual reading of the Document that they swear the Oath to.

This reading will take place on the Second day of the 112^th Congress in session and the first time in history that the Constitution will be read aloud on the floor of the House.

This is probably the most honorable symbol from those the American People entrust so much too, with vested power, in enacting laws and keeping us safe. Simply put the Constitution is the relevant document that bestows our Legislative, Executive and Judicial leaders in the Federal Government with the needed authority on what they can and cannot do for or most importantly against the American people.

Today more and more Americans are talking about this document because they are reading it and understanding the true nature of its power when enforced by the American people. As the word spread about this reading on the House floor led by new House Speaker John Boehner some in the media questioned this with obvious confusion and anger.

On Joy Behar’s HLN program Tuesday night she questioned a Progressive radio host Bill Press, “Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand? I mean, is it a nod to the Tea Party?" Behar asked Press, before unwittingly, perhaps, answering her own question: "Is it the first time a lot of congressmen will have heard about it, er, read it?"

The mood amongst most Americans and specifically the TEA Party is that which Behar described in her ending remarks. Most of the Congressmen in Washington have never read it, much less understand it because if the Politicians do they are willingly lying about the Constitutions intent for Government and breaking an Oath to God.

What’s worse is the thought Ezra Klein of the Washington Post most absurdly articulated here in this statement on MSNBC, a news channel.“You can say two things about it, One; it has no binding power on ANYTHING. The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago, and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.”

The idea that the text is confusing is extremely disturbing given that if the Constitution and all 27 Amendments are added to a Word document with Calibri and 11 size fonts you have 17 pages of 7,500 words. Just one of the most recent laws signed by President Obama, one of positive rights, ObamaCare, was 2,500 pages and more than 500,000 words and in the last two years Congress has passed and President Obama has signed at least 5 laws just like ObamaCare. How will we ever interpret them? (And everyday we learn something new about this bill that isn’t good for “We the People”!

These remarks come from a much discussed and debated idea most of you reading this will already know and that is that the Constitution is a “Living, Breathing Document.” This means that we, namely Politicians and those wanting to get stuff done, have to translate and manipulate the language of the Constitution to fit their purpose and our rapidly changing environment, socially and politically, based on verbiage.

For those that proclaim the living, breathing lie also believe the Constitutions language must be altered arbitrarily, or interpreted, to match the agenda for those seeking to pass unconstitutional legislation.Over generations meanings of words do change but for this case the Founding Fathers wrote and published thousands of hand written explanations for the words, terms and meanings of which they used.

The most important aspect of all this aside from reading and understanding our founding documents is how the concept of the “living,breathing document” theory was passed down as more than a theory.

To some, the answer and conclusion you will read may seem controversial or conspiratorial but the annals of history and time prove this true. I implore you to not take my word for it but conduct your own research and you will find the same answers.

As Karl Marx, German Philosopher, and Friedrich Engels’, German Social Scientist, Communist Manifesto took off amongst the elite in the world and the framework for their plans began to take shape. For the many pages of horrid rhetoric describing the knowledge on how to dismantle the American system in particular the Authors tell of the plans to remove the American people from history and eternal truths.

“Undoubtedly,religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

It is true that President Reagan defeated the Communist Soviet Russians and the Communist International but ideas are more complicated to defeat than a human cabal.

Those Americans who joined hands with the Communist around the turn of the 20^th century knew that once the ills of the Communist International were made public the ideas espoused by them would never see the light of day. So, the only logical thing to do would be to call your ideas by another name. For this we have a generation of history in America that is called the Progressive Era.

This was the beginning of the end of generations of American children learning the meaning and history of our founding leaders and documents. Those children obviously grew up and did not understand the concept of limited-Government and what the tool that kept it that way was. For this, we have a completely out of control Federal Government that is constantly stepping over its boundaries and usurping from the American people the ability to self-govern.

Understand Liberal/Progressives will use the Constitution, explicitly to progress their agenda, but when it comes to the ideas of it limiting government per its enumerated powers the document becomes out dated and hard to interpret. So, in hindsight, to Progressives the Constitution is a dead, living breathing document.

The importance of the Constitution cannot be overstated for a free people to remain as such. In fact Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence said, “If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

The Constitution is a timeless document that transcends generations primarily due to the overarching wisdom and intellect of history and Faith in God by the Founding Fathers. The men, who debated, wrote and studied which form of government to be best where literal students of history and took from the best of former societies and established unto God what was intended for human kind, Individual Liberty and self-government.

Because of this, it is of the utmost importance that each and every American be more than familiar with the documents history, text and original intent. The intent of which I speak is a parameter setting, NOT for the general public as are laws, but for the Government. It lists basic governing principles and enumerated powers that are to be bound like shackles to the ankles of our Representing body of government.

Like most humans do when presented with an obstacle in its way is for that human to get around said obstacle, like former Speaker of the House Progressive Democrat Nancy Pelosi stated during the healthcare debate, "We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed.” The Constitution was the obstacle and the American people were the closed gate.

But if removed, the Constitution or the people, singularly or both together you have a government in full fledge tyranny.

The idea at the time of ratification was simply to give the majority unblemished Freedom and allow for God’s hand to work its spirit and soon thereafter would secure to all unequivocal Freedom that no human civilization has ever been witnessed to.

Above all, what makes the U.S. Constitution so special aside from securing self governance and individual liberty is that it is the oldest governing document in human history. Most societies revolutionize themselves every fifty to one hundred years. We, Americans, have lived under the inalienable core principles abound in the Constitution for more than 234 years.

This gives even more reason for taking an Oath to God to uphold and defend with my life and liberty in order to secure it for future generations because if there is no more important thing to understand then self governance it is that the Constitution and Freedom do NOT belong to us, this generation, it belongs to future generations of God’s children to also uphold and defend. We are not the sole proprietors of Liberty but it must be passed on and the only way to accomplish this is by teaching, reading and living by the Constitution.

“Whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson letter to James Madison

The U.S. Constitution by Chris Bowling at the Laredo TEA Party Patriots

Wilder Pub. put WARNING LABELS on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

They feed us genetically modified food that our bodies may not even recognize as food, our school kids are #19 in the world... 100's of cities don't have safe water in their pipes, and now...

THE CONSTITUTION NEEDS A WARNING LABEL!??

I gotta say....I am actually laughing at this one...

Want to fight back? Write Wilder a nice little note and then go buy one of those things they "warned" us of, from ANOTHER publisher.  And then do something REALLY mean and spiteful... Actually READ THE THING!

Read Full Story Here and then Please Share:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/09/publishing-company-putting-warning-label-constitution/

The Congress was starting their session today with the reading of the Constitution… sadly necessary!!

BIRTHER HECKLER IN HOUSE CHAMBER INTERRUPTS CONSTITUTION READING

Did You Know… The Founding Fathers and God

And if you haven’t read the Constitution (and related documents) or have children in school now, please sit down and read it and discuss it…  Here are some suggestions:

• The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America
• The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation
• The Federalist Papers
• The 5000 Year Leap
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense

This photo is an example of what makes America great… the most civil transfer of power in world… even sealed with a kiss by this two arch rivals. It demonstrates the amazing tools that our Founding Fathers have given us… a republic and a divinely inspired Constitution that the Progressives have worked to destroy for over 100-years, and are closer in doing so than they ever have been before! If there was ever a time for each of us to get involved in saving our country and all that is good about it, it is now!

Keep them honest… Keep up the pressure by calling, faxing, emailing and writing your Senators and Congress-people as well as visiting their offices both at home and Washington D.C. and keep the tea party candidates and Republicans focused on their election promises!!

A Short Defense of American Exceptionalism

Obama's Push for Copenhagen Deal Could Violate Constitution

President Obama's mission to save the planet from global warming could end up trampling on the U.S. Constitution, critics say.

When Obama arrives in Copenhagen Friday, he is hoping to cut a deal on a new global-warming agreement. Even though the conference is not likely to produce a legally binding deal, critics say if the president signs an international climate treaty pledging reductions in carbon emissions, he will violate the Constitution.

"President Obama cannot bind the American people to job killing international agreements on climate change without the advice and consent of the United States Senate," former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote Wednesday at the conservative Web site Human Events.

The Constitution states that the president cannot sign treaties without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

But with climate change legislation stuck in the Senate after the House passed its version earlier this year, the White House is flirting with the possibility of taking action without Congress.

Last week, on the day the climate summit opened in Denmark, the EPA formally declared that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are a danger to human health -- a finding that could pave the way for massive new regulations under the Clean Air Act for cars, power plants, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants.

While administration officials have said they would prefer Congress take action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Republicans fear the EPA, buoyed by its latest finding, is prepared to act unilaterally.

Democratic Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, co-author of the House climate change bill, told Fox News that the Obama administration has the power to act without Congress through the EPA.

"It's no longer a question of legislation or no legislation," he told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "It is now a question of legislation or regulation. The EPA can act.

"And so this is now something which is going to happen. And the only question now is whether or not, as you say, command and control of the EPA is going to be the way in which we solve the problem, or legislation that allows us to protect trade-intensive, energy-intensive industries, to protect consumers."

But Gingrich warned of an uprising if the Obama administration takes action through the EPA.

"Similarly, he can't bypass the peoples' representatives in Congress by having the EPA pursue the same goals through bureaucratic totalitarianism," he wrote.

"This message to the president is also a message to Congress. Should the Obama administration act unilaterally and subvert the Constitution, the American people will rightfully rise up in opposition."

Global leaders were expected to arrive before Friday's summit finale to sign a political outline of a global warming treaty that would set limits on carbon dioxide pollution by the United States, China and India, as well as extend emissions targets for the 37 countries regulated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which was never ratified by the U.S.

So far, negotiations in Copenhagen have been rocky. The Obama administration is looking to strike a loose agreement on guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions, with a binding treaty to follow sometime in the future.

But Obama has received one warning from a member of his party on signing a treaty. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., told Obama in a letter late last month not to commit the U.S. to any binding climate standards in Copenhagen without congressional support.

"As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country," he wrote.

Webb's office could not be reached for further comment.

The Center for Biological Diversity Climate Law Institute, however, argues the Supreme Court has given the president the legal authority to bypass Congress and bind the country internationally through an "executive agreement" and that Congress itself has given the president specific authority to negotiate international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In a report, the institute also claims that Obama could "make an international commitment grounded in his power -- and indeed, his duty -- to enforce existing U.S. environmental laws," such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act.

"In short, any one of these sources of authority would allow President Obama to make a binding, meaningful commitment to the international community," the institute wrote in the report, titled "Yes He Can: President Obama's Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress."

"Together, these congressional enactments and environmental statutes give President Obama a very strong hand -- strong enough to do what the science demands, and not just what a divided and rancorous Congress might someday allow."

But others framed Obama's trip to Copenhagen in very different terms.

"Who will President Obama heed?" Vince Haley, vice president of policy at American Solutions for Winning the Future, wrote in an opinion article published in FoxNews.com. "The American people and our constitutional system of checks and balances, or the collection of dictators, tyrants, and most undemocratic heads of government convened by the United Nations in Copenhagen this week?

"They are tempting the American president to do what he wants to do and what they mostly do: ignore the will of their own people and sign a political agreement based on an unconstitutional sham."

FOXNews.com

Oathkeepers~ Not On Our Watch

OATH KEEPERS is an association of Military, Veterans, and peace officers who will honor their oaths to defend the Constitution, will NOT just follow orders, will stand for liberty, and will save the Republic, so help us God. Our motto is:

"Not on Our Watch!"

SUMMARY LIST OF ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Source: www.oathkeepers.org

Related:

Drones, Cowboys and the Right to Surrender