textfiles-politics/regexConsp/senate.xml

<xml><p>
     OUR SENATE?
    
   "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  Wisconsin. "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 Washington, 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
  Congress.  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 the United States Senate.
   The Vice-president joined the happy group.  "Jack, 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 Exclusive Club."  
   This performance is a continuing charade playing on the
  ignorance  of  the  American  public.  The  "World's  Most
  Exclusive Club" 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  Congress  were  established  to
  .
  protect the  sovereignty of  the states. This  was a major
  stumbling block in the writing  of  our  Constitution. The
  first  branch,  the  House  of  Representatives,  were to be
  elected directly by the people. The representation  in the
  House  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 American States, House
  Document No. 398, 69th Congress, 1st Session,) (1965).
   This principle lasted until  1912. The power managers
  behind our government convinced the American people they had
  more  wisdom  than  our  Founding  Fathers.  They  had  an
  amendment  to  our  Constitution  introduced  into  Congress
  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 Secretary 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 PEOPLE
  established  the  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of
  America.
   The key is WE THE PEOPLE.  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 the United States, a  person MUST be
  a natural born citizen of the United States. (Art II, Sec 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.  Knox, play  acting as Secretary of State,
  introduced the 17th amendment  into Congress  in 1912. The
  man  who  was  acting  as president was William Howard Taft.
  Taft was born in Cincinnati, Ohio on September 15, 1857.
   SURPRISE . . . Ohio was NOT admitted to the Union until
  August 7,  1953! At the time Taft was elected to be presi-
  dent Ohio 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 Congress hits the panic button in a
  frantic  effort  to  correct  a  major  mistake.  In their
  infinite 'wisdom',  they passed a Joint Resolution admitting
  Ohio as a full and equal member of  the union. (Public Law
  204, 83rd Congress, 1st Session).
   Section  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, Sec 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.
   Taft was not president and his illegal lackeys  such as
  Philander C Knox were not officials of the government.  They
  introduced this  amendment illegally  into Congress. It is
  therefore an  unconstitutional act  and of no legal consequ-
  ence.
   The election of Senators is as it was in the beginning,
  by the  Legislatures 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  Suffrage  in the
   Senate."</p>

<p>   The 'Secretary  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.
   Delaware and  Utah 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  supreme  power 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  Washington,  in  his  Farewell Address made the
  following remark: "Usurpation  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  Alexander Hamilton  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.)
   Hamilton 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  Congress  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:  "All  Bills  for  raising  Revenue shall
  originate in  the House  of Representatives;  but the Senate
  may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
   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 American 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 Congressman.
   This  business of  Congress  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 IRS!
   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.
   Care to  check on how many treaties ratified since 1914
  are not constitutionally  binding?  How  about  the United
  Nations or the giveaway of the Panama Canal? </p>

<p>    YOUR SUPPORT IS APPRECIATED....</p>

<p>    PLEASE REGISTER....

    READ 'SALES PITCH' CHAPTER.....
</p></xml>