Monday, March 30, 2009

Eligibility

Whether or not a certain person is eligible to be President of the United States or not is not a question I can answer. I can say this though. In today's world of computers and technology, proof WILL BE forthcoming. The validity of that proof and the accuracy of the information will be untestable. Those in power in the world will see to it that a certain person maintains his hold on the US.

For those who dismiss me as a conspiracy not, I respond that you don't pay attention to enough of what happens in the world. Those who do not believe that off the radar folks manage the world are simply either idiots or fools.

NBoC

Let's get this straight

On the money:

I am not a fool. I am not an idiot. I may not be THE most brilliant. But I am sentient.

The federal government never had the authority to determine what was and what wasn't legal tender. The federal government was only given authority to coin money, i.e. metal things with images, words, and values on them. And the feds were given a second power to be able to regulate the value of those coins. And the feds were given authority to set the exchange rates between our coins and foreign coin. Paper money was verbotten!!! Paper money still is forbidden regardless of the lie of the courts in the Legal Tender Cases. The courts do not have the authority to make such a determination.

Some will say that it's been this way for a long time and the people have accepted it so that makes it OK. Fine. The People accepted slavery for 100,000 yrs so slavery is OK. Oh, you think not. Are you a bit contorted trying to have it both ways? Either acceptance makes something acceptable or it does not. I say NOT.

Regardless of how long the People accept some action by the government, the action does not become legitimate simply because of time of use or lack of refusal by the People.

The full authority to decide legal tender resides solely with the States BUT that power is limited by the Constitution to gold and silver coins, the coins that the federal government is supposed to make. Could the States issue paper money like they used to? No, that too was banned by the Constitution because the States may not emit Bills of Credit.

So we are in a bad place because too many stupid People like you have no idea what it allowed and what is not. Congresscritters are constantly offering amendments of the Constitution without the slightest knowledge of the Constitution or its function. And the People get the shaft.
NBoC

Sunday, March 29, 2009

More stupid constitutional issues,

1. UNCRC - United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child - The US CANNOT legally sign this treaty/ The President and the Senate may make treaties "under the authority of the United States". But the Constitutioni spells out ALL the authority the federal government has. Tha authority to sign such a treaty is not part of the authority of the federal government thus any such treaty is void.

2. The US does not have the authority to set legal tender. That power was left to the States as is proven in the Constitution. If you are too stupid to find it, email me and I'll shove your nose down on the print so you can see it.

3. An amendment granting parents rights to raise their children is not needed. The Constitution did not grant the government the power to interfere with parental rights. The Constitution is not the place to grant rights/ The Bill of Rights is not a grant. It is a list of recgonized Rights that come from God. The Constitution is a set of rules for the government to obey. Those rules were made by the people

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

On the Requirements of a Legislator to remain obedient to the Constitution


On the requirements of a Legislator to remain
obedient to the Constitution.


185. ..."The case is different with the legislator and executive. He is bound to support the Constitution, - to uphold it as one of the pillars to an edifice. He is under the Constitution, not above it. He cannot support it by doing an act repugnant to it. 'His public office is a public trust.' If he doubts his power to do under the authority of the Constitution, he is bound to resolve the doubt against the act, not in favor of it."


"Mr. Cooley thus states it: 'Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution; they are chosen to do what it permits, and nothing more, and they take a solemn oath to obey and support it. When they disregard its provisions they usurp authority, abuse their trust and violate the promises they have confirmed by an oath. To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume. ... A witness in court who would treat his oath thus lightly, and affirm things of which he was in doubt, would be held a criminal. Indeed, it is because the legilsature has applied the judgement of its members to the question of its authority to pass the proposed law, and has only passed it after being satisfied of the authority, that the judiciary waive their own doubts and give it their support.'"


"He holds the same views as to the duty of the President, and maintains that the President, even where the judiciary has sanctioned the constitutionality of an act, is not only duty bound to give his approval to a similar act, but may, in consonance with his duty, withhold his approval. It follows from this, that a legislator cannot justify a vote for a law on the ground that as judge he would not declare it void. The legislator crosses no forbidden line when he refuses to enact what he believes is repugnant to the Constitution. The judiciary does cross a forbidden line where it declares a law void, unless it be without doubt repugnant to the Constitution. The legislator is never warranted in voting for a law he does not believe the Constitution sanctions, to support which he has sworn as an affirmative duty, not that he will not pull down the pillars of the ediface, but, as one of the many pillars, he will uphold it."


"In the case of the law-maker, the question to be asked is: 'Have I the right under the Constitution to pass this act ?' The onus is for him to show his authority. In the case of a judge, the question is: 'Is the law clearly unconstitutional ? In annulling the law in support of the Constitution will I transcend my judicial functions and usurp the legislative; or is the repugnancy so strong that I will only act judicially in annulling the effect of the law, and not transcend the boundary of my power ?' The burden shifts in the two cases. The legislator must show 2that he has the right; the judge must show the legislator was clearly wrong."


"Hence the law-maker may not justify a vote for a measure which as judge he could not declare void; but, if the judiciary declares such an act unconstitutional, it should forbid the law-maker to pass similar legislation. On the other hand, though the judiciary cannot declare a law unconstitutional because not clearly repugnant, it does not justify the law-maker in voting for it."


The Constitution of the United States: A Critical Discussion of its Genesis, Development, and Interpretation, John Randolph Tucker, LL.D., 1899. ISBN 0-8377-1206-8


Cooley on Constitutional Law, Pp. 153-54. 161-63., Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union, Judge Thomas Cooley, 1868.


Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, (3rd ed. 1898).

Friday, March 13, 2009

Conspriracy

It is quite difficult today to find any item that is NOT made in China. I want to by "American" but it is almost impossible. And I wonder. Why does it seem that EVERY company out there is producing their goods in China? Because labor is cheap. Maybe but there are many places where labor is cheaper.

So what else could it be?

The US Government has a deal with the government of Communist China to by US debt. I find it interesting, to say the least, that what is supposed to be OUR government is selling us out to foreign powers. But then I realize the what is supposed to be our government ceased to work for us decades ago. And I also being to logically evaluate the situation. Now I am a cynic. I believe nearly everyone has ulterior motives and that conspiracies among the powerful exist. So ...

I put things together and arrive at a conclusion. How would the US government be able to convince Communist China to buy our debt when other countries won't touch it? Maybe, just maybe, our government has promised the Chinese government something in return. And I believe that that something is that the US government will force, under the table of course, companies that want to do business in the US to produce the bulk of their goods in China.

Conspiracy yes. Possible yes. Probable absolutely.

NBoC

Monday, March 09, 2009

Executive order allowing federal spending on stem research

Well there they go again. Obama signs an executive order allowing federal monies to be spent on stem cell research. One problem: IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!

All spending must originate in the House of Representatives, even the Senate cannot start a spending bill. And absolutely the president has NO authority to decide where and how money is spent.

The Constitution also required a journal of all expenditures be keep and published, every penny.

Congress may not delegate spending power as that is a violation of the public trust. Allowing anyone other than Congress to "manage" the money is a breach of trust.

So if you care, if you want your governmental to adhere to the legal rules of operation then contact your representative and tell them to get things under control or you will vote against them next time. Then do it.


NBoC

Monday, March 02, 2009

Fix the economic problems

My fix for insurance (health, etc) and banking woes.

Don't let them sell shares of stock in the companies. Remove the incentive to make money when providing what used to be a cooperative service to help one's fellow man.

NBoC