Re: Making money from Java


"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Itakf.48010$6y4.16939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> The keyword is "violent", Richard. As I clearly pointed out, US
Citizens
> > are
> >> free to peacefully reform the government as much as they choose,
through
> > the
> >> democratic process.
> >
> > Yet, Mr McClendon, you have repeatedly labeled
> > a political party and its U.S. citizen members,
> > participating in this "democratic process", as criminal.
>
> I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but I really do wish you would stop
> putting words in my mouth. Your statement above is patently false. I
haven't
> labeled *anybody* as a criminal. I have only mentioned a single point in
the
> US Constitution that defines treason, and that was expressed
conditionally,
> I *did not* state a conclusion.

Having reviewed this portion of the thread, I withdraw
and apologize for using "repeatedly". The rest stands.

> > The people are also free to reform the government
> > though the judicial process and I am certain that some
> > wish for a court order so strongly worded that the
> > injustice will meet a "violent" end. I am working
> > toward such an end, myself; because, as I have found,
> > the "democratic process" just doesn't work for all and
> > my attempts to end the injustice by "petition[ing] the
> > government for a redress of grievances" has also failed.
>
>
> The judicial branch of the US Government was *never* intended to "reform
the
> government". The clearly stated purpose of the judicial branch is to
> interpret and apply laws passed by Congress, and the Constitution, no
more,
> no less. It is unfortunate that activist judges have chosen to go way past
> this, in essence bypassing congress altogether and creating their own law.
> Now, instead of a large group of elected people who are responsible to the
> people passing laws, you have a very small number of unelected people who
> are not responsible to the people, creating their own laws. Bad, bad, bad!
> Worse than bad. A serious breakdown of the way the government is supposed
to
> work, and bypassing the checks and balances the founding fathers built
into
> the system.

See < http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm >,
"The Judiciary Department" [Alexander Hamilton],

"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. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the
Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to
affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that
the servant is above his master; that the representatives
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.

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the
constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the
construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the
other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot
be the natural presumption, where it is not to be
collected from any particular provisions in the
Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the
Constitution could intend to enable the representatives
of the people to substitute their will to that of their
constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the
courts were designed to be an intermediate body
between the people and the legislature, in order, among
other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned
to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the
proper and peculiar province of the courts. A
constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to
them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning
of any particular act proceeding from the legislative
body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable
variance between the two, that which has the superior
obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred;
or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred
to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention
of their agents"

Mr McClendon, it is one purpose of the "Judiciary
Department" "to keep the [legislature] within the limits
assigned to their authority" and therefore to reform
government by putting an end to its abuses and usurpations.
The problem I noticed, from studying past decisions, is
that "activist" judges from the 1880s through the 1940s
greatly expanded the power of Congress by
reconstructing the Constitution and the term "Judicial
Reconstruction" is used to describe, at least part of, this
period.

Whether individuals are elected or appointed is of no
concern since all are required, under Article VI, clause 3,
"to support this Constitution". The problem I have is that,
since the 1880s, they have repeatedly failed to do so.

> As far as not being able to get your agenda passed, we don't always get
our
> way. That's life, get used to it. :-)

My agenda, Mr McClendon, is to once again get
government to honor the constitutional obligation of
"to support this Constitution".

I am unable to "get used to it." I have an anxiety-related
illness known as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and
there has been nothing that, for me, triggers the anxiety
more than my relationship with government. It is the one
problem from which I can find no escape.

Until recently, I have been unable to bring myself to
proceed with a suit, due to my illness; but two more
recent events served to reduce my stress level.

At this point, I am making a list for FOIA requests
to complete the documentary evidence to show what
the U.S. knew and failed to account for when it passed
the law. I already have some public government and
non-government documents and have been "polishing"
the constitutional argument.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I am ashamed of my country
    ... However, the war was NOT about slavery, except insofar as The South:> ... The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as ... The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: I am ashamed of my country
    ... However, the war was NOT about slavery, except insofar as The South:> thought it was... ... The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. ... The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. ... The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Sutheps Handiwork
    ... Government sources said most protesters came from Bangkok and surrounding areas. ... movement but in their upward path, these laws have either been dropped or are no ... (section 59 of the 1997 constitution) ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Property rights in China at this point would bring about the same scenario as Native Americans selli
    ... Mr Yu is one of a few people who dare to publicly denounce the nation's widely lauded economic and social reform policies as "carrying on capitalism" and "violating the constitution". ... And he blames these deviations on "rightists", a force he admits is "dominant" in the government and the Communist Party - for now. ... While he claims to be a lone voice in seeking to safeguard socialism, his high-profile fight signals a resurgence of conservative forces within and outside the government and the ruling Communist Party. ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: OT - Email about President Bush
    ... > Just as the government has constitutional powers to pass laws against ... > powers to pass laws against physician-assisted abortion. ... > According to our Constitution, ... And cell culture without stem cells will not answer all of the questions. ...
    (sci.med)