textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/senate.xml

<xml><p>OUR <ent type='ORG'>SENATE</ent>?</p>
<p>
"This has been a tough election and I'm happy it's
over. And we finally upset that conservative who has been
holding up all the progressive legislation for so many
years."
"Yes, finally." declared the financial backer and
mentor of the new Senator from <ent type='GPE'>Wisconsin</ent>. "Now we'll be
able to get more of our legislation through the Senate.
This has been an uphill battle all the way. Old Charlie
Smith sure gave us an intense fight. If we hadn't had the
financial backing from so many of my friends, we never would
have unseated him."
They called the Vice-president to administer the oath
to the newly elected Senator. The ceremony was set for the
3rd day of January in his freshly decorated office. Present
for the swearing in was his family and several friends who
had arrived in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, D.C. only the day before. They
were thrilled at being in the Capitol building. They'd
heard so much about all the pomp and circumstance in our
<ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>. The Senator's wife and children were smiling from
ear to ear as was his mother. She was swelling with pride
over her son being elected to <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States Senate.
The Vice-president joined the happy group. "<ent type='PERSON'>Jack</ent>, I've
come to administer the oath of your office. Hell, I know
you believe in the Constitution, don't you?"
"Yes Sir, of course."
The Vice-president shook his hand and immediately
walked over to offer his congratulations to Jack's family.
While the local television reporters were present, no
one questioned that the oath was not administered. The
happy scene was simply one of mass confusion. Reporters
rushed forward to shake the hand of the new Senator. The
cameras swung around to the Vice-president. He smiled and
said, "Welcome to The United States Senate! This is the
World's Most <ent type='ORG'>Exclusive Club</ent>."
This performance is a continuing charade playing on the
ignorance of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> public. The "World's Most
<ent type='ORG'>Exclusive Club</ent>" has not been legally in session since the
election following 1913. How 'bout that?
There have been over seventy years of illegal legisla-tion and unconstitutional treaty verification. 70+ years of
unconstitutional confirmation of federal judges, ambassadors
and officers of the President's cabinet. How can this be?
Surely no one in our government would allow such a practice
to continue if it were true.
Unfortunately, it is true. Usually, when you don't
watch the store . . . you get robbed. And that is what has
happened to our government. WE haven't been watching the
store. The behind the scene power brokers have destroyed
the form of our government. There are special checks and
balances as protections which our Founding Fathers estab-lished at the Convention.
Two branches of the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> were established to
protect the sovereignty of the states. This was a major
stumbling block in the writing of our Constitution. The
first branch, <ent type='ORG'>the House</ent> of Representatives, were to be
elected directly by the people. The representation in the
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent> would vary according to population. This is still
true today.
The Senate, our second branch, was set up to represent
state interests in the new government. Each state has equal
representation and voice in national affairs. Senators were
elected by each respective state legislature. Consequently
each state became an integral part in the formation of the
new national government. They designed this to be the link
between the state and national systems of government. One
advantage to this system was our Senators were less vul-nerable to graft and control by persons with other than
honorable motives. Whenever state legislatures suspected
Senators were not watching out for the state's interest in
national affairs they were often replaced.
This was the check and balance against the first branch
which was elected by popular vote. (Documents Illustrative
of the Formation of the Union of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> States, <ent type='ORG'>House</ent>
Document No. 398, 69th <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, 1st Session,) (1965).
This principle lasted until 1912. The power managers
behind our government convinced the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> people they had
more wisdom than our Founding Fathers. They had an
amendment to our Constitution introduced into <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>
proposing to give the election of Senators directly to the
people. This amendment had the net effect of destroying the
sovereignty of state governments.
The <ent type='ORG'>Sec</ent>retary of State made the announcement on May 31,
1913. He declared the amendment ratified by the legisla-tures of thirty-six of the forth-eight (sic) states.
(ibid., footnote page 1071.)
Sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? Sounds all legal
and constitutional. This is what dudes in government want
you to believe . . . but it's a lie, a fairy tale! Let's
examine this sequence of errors.
In fancy and boldly written letters, the introductory
statement to our Constitution declares that WE THE <ent type='ORG'>PEOPLE</ent>
established the Constitution for <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States of
America.
The key is WE THE <ent type='ORG'>PEOPLE</ent>. We granted permission to the
new government for certain specified and limited powers. By
so doing, we granted the new government operating powers and
gave them jurisdiction over us. The document is full of
'thou shalt nots'. Powers which were not granted cannot be
assumed. Nor can any powers which were granted be enlarged
or exceeded.
The individual states were really jealous of their
sovereignty. They all feared the powers given to the new
national government were not sufficiently restricted. This
fear of the smaller states of domination by the larger
nearly wrecked the Constitutional Convention. They demanded
a Bill of Rights be added to the new constitution after ratification.
The entire Bill of Rights will get a thorough examina-tion in a later paper. For now, let's concern ourselves
with one which proves NO authority can be assumed by the
national government -- the Tenth amendment clearly spells
out that the powers not delegated belong to the states or
the people.
This amendment is the basis to determine whether the
national government has permission to function in a given
area. If the power was not delegated by us and spelled out
in the document, they don't have it. This amendment is the
one the federal government chooses to ignore and probably
wishes did not exist.
Another basic assumption we have to acknowledge is only
we can agree to any changes in the document. Therefore we
are responsible for the operation of our government. They
are responsible to us.
To be President of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States, a person MUST be
a natural born citizen of <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent> States. (Art II, <ent type='ORG'>Sec</ent> 1)
This is a fixed, explicit command. There are NO exceptions
allowed. No emergency allowances or amendment saying anyone
but a natural born citizen can be president. This is the
only requirement in the entire document that a candidate be
natural born. It's obvious the Founders put it there for a
specific purpose.
Philander C. <ent type='ORG'>Knox</ent>, play acting as <ent type='ORG'>Sec</ent>retary of State,
introduced the 17th amendment into <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> in 1912. The
man who was acting as president was <ent type='PERSON'>William Howard Taft</ent>.
<ent type='PERSON'>Taft</ent> was born in <ent type='GPE'>Cincinnati</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Ohio</ent> on September 15, 1857.
SURPRISE . . . <ent type='GPE'>Ohio</ent> was NOT admitted to the Union until
August 7, 1953! At the time <ent type='PERSON'>Taft</ent> was elected to be president <ent type='GPE'>Ohio</ent> was simply a territory. It was not a state which
means he was not a natural born citizen. Our Constitution
was violated. He was not eligible to be president by any
stretch of your imagination!
So our illustrious <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> hits the panic button in a
frantic effort to correct a major mistake. In their
infinite 'wisdom', they passed a Joint Resolution admitting
<ent type='GPE'>Ohio</ent> as a full and equal member of the union. (Public Law
204, 83rd <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>, 1st Session).
<ent type='ORG'>Sec</ent>tion 2 of that resolution states: "This joint
resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803. Approved
August 7, 1953." Quick arithmetic shows that to be
backdated by 150 years. That's ex-post facto law.
They CAN'T do it! It's a conspicuous violation of our
Constitution which states: "No . . . ex post facto law
shall be passed." (Art I, <ent type='ORG'>Sec</ent> 9) This was added protection
for our citizens. An act which was legal one day could not
be declared illegal a day, a week, or even years later. NO
law can be predated by one day. We didn't agree to any
change through the amendment process. That guaranteed
protection of no ex post facto law is still the basic law of
the land.
Another problem surfaces under this Public Law. They used a resolution to make a law when the intent of the
Founders was for only bills to become law. Resolutions are
to express an opinion or to censure some person or action
but were never to become law.
<ent type='PERSON'>Taft</ent> was not president and his illegal lackeys such as
Philander C <ent type='ORG'>Knox</ent> were not officials of the government. They
introduced this amendment illegally into <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>. It is
therefore an unconstitutional act and of no legal consequ-ence.
The election of Senators is as it was in the beginning,
by <ent type='ORG'>the Legislatures</ent> of the various states, NOT by popular
vote. They have not been in session legally since 1913.
Wait . . . there's more! Let's look at the last two
lines of Article V of our Constitution.</p>

<p> ". . . and that no State, without its consent,
shall be deprived of its equal <ent type='ORG'>Suffrage</ent> in the
Senate."</p>

<p> The '<ent type='ORG'>Sec</ent>retary of State' announced in 1913 it had been
ratified by the legislatures of thirty-six of the forty-eight states.
Article V says 100% of the states have to agree to any
change in their equal voice in the Senate. Not three-quarters as he announced. 100 PERCENT of the states must
agree.
<ent type='GPE'>Delaware</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Utah</ent> objected to the amendment and nine
other states did not act on it. Another section of the
Constitution was violated in defiance of the authority we
granted. Thirty-six states have forced a change on the
other states in their equal voting power in the Senate.
Some might say they still have equal suffrage since
there are two Senators from each state. (Sounds like a weak
bureaucratic argument.) However, they no longer represent
primarily the interest of the state. Now they supposedly
represent the interests of the people. All the states did
not agree to allow for a change of equal voting power.
These acts constitute usurpation of powers we granted.
For a definition of usurpation, in Black's Law Dictionary,
we find: "The unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign
power. The assumption of government or <ent type='ORG'>supreme power</ent> by
force or illegally, in derogation of the constitution and of
the rights of the lawful ruler."
Isn't this exactly what we have just found has been
happening to the authority we granted?
George <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, in his Farewell Address made the
following remark: "<ent type='GPE'>Usurpation</ent> is the customary weapon by
which free governments are destroyed." Another admonition
we have ignored. (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, J.
D. Richardson, 1898)
To quote <ent type='PERSON'>Alexander Hamilton</ent> in The Federalist Papers,
No. 78: "There is no position which depends on clearer
principles than that every act of a delegated authority,
contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void." What they did is no good . . . they
broke the law. (All references to 'paper no.' are from this
book.)
<ent type='PERSON'>Hamilton</ent> goes on further in the same paper to state:
"To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater
than his principle; that the servant is above his master;
that the representative of the people are superior to the
people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may
do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what
they forbid."
Madison, in Paper No. 62 makes clear the reasoning for
the election of Senators by the states: "In this spirit it
may be remarked that the equal vote allowed to each State is
at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of
sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an
instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty."
"No law or resolution can now be passed without the
concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of
a majority of the States."
Presently, we no longer have that guarantee of one
branch of the <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> watching the actions of the other
branch. The established check and balance was destroyed.
These people now go willy-nilly passing legislation in
direct contradiction to the intent of our Founding Fathers.
As one obvious example, in 1982 a money bill originated
in the Senate. Can't be done legally. This is in direct
violation of a crystal clear restriction in our Constitution
which dictates: "<ent type='ORG'>All Bills for raising Revenue</ent> shall
originate in <ent type='ORG'>the House</ent> of Representatives; but the Senate
may propose or concur with Amendments as on other <ent type='ORG'>Bills</ent>."
There was much heavy argument during the Constitutional
Convention on this very issue of money bills.
Is it becoming apparent that they now feel the servants
are above the masters? After all, who in blazes are you?
How do we correct this mess? I will be first to admit
it will be difficult. There is no question they will be
reluctant to give up their powers and positions. They're on
the big gravy train and it's tough to derail. Phone calls
and letters to the offices of your Senators would be a
start. Letters to the Editors of local newspapers will
alert other people. Let's start putting up some roadblocks
to derail that train.
Using Petitions For Redress of Grievances to Senators
and Representatives will be a good tactic. It will be
interesting to see what they have to say about it.
State Legislatures will have to become involved in this
fight. After all, it was their power in the national
government and their sovereignty which was diluted and
destroyed. I'm also certain they know nothing about this
issue at present so each citizen MUST question their state
representative.
The states were duped into accepting the 17th Amend-ment. The states who did not act on the ratification would
be the logical ones to initiate the action. They should
force the federales to have the amendment set aside. They
easily repealed the 18th amendment (Prohibition) by Conven-tions in the States. We have to start the action and get
our government back within the confines of the authority
which we granted!
The filing of a civil suit as a federal question action
in federal court would be another option. The action would
have to be directly against the Senate for being illegally
in session.
The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> people have the intelligence, ingenuity
and backbone to get a job done once they are aware of a
serious problem. We are not a nation of wimps . . . not yet
anyway. A comment is necessary concerning our new Senator
not taking the required oath in our opening illustration. I
personally have witnessed such an incident on local televis-ion news which concerned a newly elected <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>man.
This business of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent> passing a law which is 150
years ex post facto has other serious ramifications. I will
cover these in later papers. More surprises on the way and
it involves our friends at the <ent type='ORG'>IRS</ent>!
For now, let's get our Senate back to it's proper
representation of each State's interest. We are being made
fools of by our national government.
<ent type='ORG'>Care</ent> to check on how many treaties ratified since 1914
are not constitutionally binding? How about <ent type='ORG'>the United</ent>
Nations or the giveaway of the Panama Canal? </p>
<p> YOUR SUPPORT IS APPRECIATED....</p>
<p> PLEASE REGISTER....READ 'SALES PITCH' <ent type='ORG'>CHAPTER</ent>.</p></xml>