Showing posts with label satire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label satire. Show all posts


Our Most Shameful Holiday

Today is the 4th of July.  It is a little known fact that we get off work not because it's the 4th day of the 7th month, or because the government declared this holiday to stimulate the boating, fireworks, and alcohol industries, but because it commemorates Independence Day.  If you know this refers to the year 1776 when the delegates of the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence to formally break their ties with Great Britain and kick-start the American Revolution, then good for you.  Your neck must hurt from carrying around your giant brain.  It's painful to watch, but man on the street interviews like this show just how clueless the average person is when it comes to basic American history.  We declared independence from China in 1976 when Jesse Ventura signed the Declaration of Independence?  Sure, why not?

However, it is not just the gross ignorance of the American booboisie that makes me ashamed to celebrate the 4th of July.  Indeed, no matter how educated you are or what you believe, I don't think anyone can be proud of this holiday.  No celebration should be had.  Take the day off, drink some beer, eat some hot dogs, but don't salute the flag, shed a tear at the national anthem, or speak fondly of the freest country on Earth.  The most appropriate action would be one of mourning, like pouring out a beer for a dead homie.

Proud of our Government?

Proud of our "democracy"?  We're spreading freedom throughout the globe after all.  Are you one of the 56% of Americans that think NSA spying is a good thing if it keeps us safe?  Do you thank your TSA officer after he gives you a thorough pat-down?  It must be a hard job to have to touch people like that, but good for them, our security is their priority.  And 4 out of 10 Americans agree: giving up some of our liberties is a good thing if it makes us safer.  Are you one of the 66% of Americans that approve of our use of drone strikes across the globe?  Hey, Obama didn't start the war, but he's got to finish it, right?  What else is a Nobel Peace Prize winner to do?

Do you feel that justice is served when drug dealers, prostitutes, tax-evaders, gun nuts, and other breakers of law and order are arrested and go to jail?  When Randy Weaver's son was gunned down and his wife executed while holding her infant baby in her arms at Ruby Ridge, did you comfort yourself by reflecting that anyone that breaks a gun law and resists arrest gets what is coming to him?  When Delta Force and Bradley tanks ended the siege in Waco, Texas and 76 Branch Davidians were burned alive, did you shrug off this event as they were nothing but cultists?  Do you think Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden are spies, terrorists, or otherwise enemies of America that should be locked up without a trial?  When martial law, I mean, shelter-in-place, was declared in Boston and the suspected teenage terrorists were killed and brought to justice, did you cheer "USA, USA, USA"?

Alright then.  You have no business celebrating the 4th of July.

After all, just what exactly are you celebrating?  Who were these founding fathers and what was the Declaration of Independence?

Even if we celebrate the actions of terrorists, at least our children will know better.

Ask this FEMA trainer, and he'll tell you that the founders were America's first home-grown terrorists.  The Declaration of Independence was a traitorous, secessionist document.  The first shots at Lexington and Concord were those of criminals murdering the police and soldiers of their lawful government!  Thankfully, our public schools are beginning to identify these domestic extremist's actions, like the Boston Tea Party, as acts of terrorism.  And there is no debating it, they are correct.

As Larken Rose eloquently spoke of the so-called founding fathers in front of Independence Hall on July 4th, 2009:
"In short, they committed treason.  They broke the law.  They disobeyed their government.  They were traitors, criminals and tax cheats.  The Boston Tea Party was not merely a tax protest, but open lawlessness.  Furthermore, truth be told, some of the colonists were even cop-killers.  At Lexington, when King George's "law enforcers" told the colonists to lay down their guns, the colonists responded with, "No, you're not the boss of us!"  And so we had "The Shot Heard 'Round the World," widely regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution.

Looking back now, we know the outcome.  We know who eventually won, and we don't mind cheering for the rebels.  But make no mistake: when you cheer for the founders of this country, you are cheering for law-breakers and traitors.


Suppose a group in this country today did what the founders did 233 years ago?  Suppose they wrote a letter to the United States government, a letter to Congress and the President, and said "We will not pay your taxes ever again.  We will not obey your laws ever again.  We do not acknowledge your right to rule us at all ever again, and when you send your thugs to enforce your will on us we will resist".

How many Americans dare to even think that?  And what would most Americans think of any group that did that?  Horrible criminals and traitors and fringe lunatics and we can't have that!  Why do we have this double standard?  Why does the whole country have these huge celebrations over Independence Day when a bunch of criminals broke the law, committed treason, and resisted authority?"
Indeed, why celebrate the 4th of July at all?  For someone that is pleased with the American government, celebrating Independence Day is as grotesque and inappropriate as celebrating the anniversary of the Trail of Tears, the Tuskegee Experiments, the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and other blemishes on our country's history.  Have we no shame?

Proud of the Founders?

So let's look at the other side of this coin.  Are you a conservative that admires the founding fathers?  Do you consider yourself a constitutionalist and think it was a document inspired by God?  Even without going to that extreme, do you like the idea of limited government, free markets, and the rule of law?  Do you think taxes are too high or regulations too tight?  Do you think you have natural rights as opposed to privileges conferred by government?  Do you feel we have moved away from principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to our own detriment and peril?

If that's the case, then you should celebrate the 4th of July like you would celebrate the funeral of your mother.

Read Gary North's article "Tricked on the Fourth of July".  Did you ever realize how good the British people had it?  1% - 2.5% of the national income went to taxes, that's all?  No income tax?  No property or sales taxes, just a measly excise tax on tea?  I can only dream of being as free as an American colonist under the "tyranny" of King George!

Read Jacob G. Hornberger's article "The Real Meaning of the fourth of July".  How quaint.  So you're telling me this holiday is about all men having fundamental and unalienable rights, with a lawful government's only role as the protection of those inherent rights?  And if the government becomes destructive towards those rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it?  Pure treason and lunacy in this day and age.  The real kicker is when he speaks of a limited government which only has the powers enumerated within the Constitution.  Apparently he's never heard of "Necessary and Proper", the "General Welfare", or "Interstate Commerce".  Everyone knows that the government can pass any law that can command us to do, not do, buy or not buy, just about anything under these provisions.  The gods in black robes called the Supreme Court said so!

In all seriousness, for anyone that cherishes the principles that America was founded on, it is a daily exercise to keep from sinking into depression, let alone on a day meant to celebrate those principles.

In Eric Peter's article "The fourth of July: Why Bother?", he touches on just a few of the freedoms this day is supposed to celebrate, and contrasts them with our grim reality.  Since analyzing the supposedly constitutionally protected rights that are violated daily is a child's exercise, he looks at rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights that would fall under the 9th Amendment such as the right to travel, the right to associate, the right to own property and the right to buy or not buy health insurance.  But the list could go on and on, so why not?  A disease cannot be treated until it is diagnosed, and we don’t do ourselves any favors by wearing rose-colored glasses to disguise just how far we've fallen from the founder's America.

Not codified in any founding documents, but an American principle nonetheless, was America's attitude towards foreign wars.  In George Washington's farewell address, he warned against the "insidious wiles of foreign influence" and to "steer clear of permanent alliances", as our true rule of conduct with foreign nations is in "extending our commercial relations" and "to have with them as little political connection as possible".  On July 4th, 1821 John Quincy Adams spoke to the U.S. House of Representatives and said:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."
So much for all that.  America has 700 military bases in 120 different foreign countries, and our troops are involved in 74 different wars.  And yet, with as many troops as we have fighting "terrorists" in other countries, we are losing more troops to suicide then to combat, some 22 a day, just about 1 an hour.

So when we're asked to support our troops this Independence Day, as false analogies compare our murderous adventures abroad to a defensive war at home, remember the suicide letter of Daniel Summers, a veteran of the Iraq war:
"The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe.  War crimes, crimes against humanity.  Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from.  I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind.  These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand.


The fact is that any kind of ordinary life is an insult to those who died at my hand.  How can I possibly go around like everyone else while the widows and orphans I created continue to struggle?  If they could see me sitting here in suburbia, in my comfortable home working on some music project they would be outraged, and rightfully so."
This July 4th support the troops and their innocent victims at the same time: protest our wars.

 It's bad enough that our young pups are turned into vicious dogs of war to commit "crimes against humanity" in the words of the late Mr. Summers, but if that was the end of our descent then at least we could still selfishly get by while the consequences of our actions are a world away.  But what goes around comes around.  The founders were very fearful and distrustful of a standing army.  Jefferson said that a central bank is more injurious to the liberties of the people than a standing army, and now we have both!  However, even with our standing army, Posse Comitatus was supposed to ensure that our military would never be used to enforce state law or police the American people.

Soldiers are trained to kill enemies at any cost.  Peace officers are supposed to protect the rights of Americans and… keep the peace.  The two professions are mutually exclusive and the training one receives in the military cultivates the exact opposite traits one would like to see in an Andy Griffith peace officer.  Yet not only do we have our PTSD-ridden soldiers coming back from foreign wars to primarily serve as police, but the last bits of respect for Posse Comitatus have finally gone out the window with the passage of anti-terrorism bills such as the Patriot Act, NDAA, and the Military Commissions Act.  However, it's one thing to see it on paper, it's another to see full-blown martial law declared in an American city, let alone the city famous for the revolutionary Boston Tea Party.

Attention Boston: Stockholm called, it wants its syndrome back.

If there was ever a time and place to be ashamed, it is this day in the city of Boston.  The American revolutionaries were hard-core.  So convinced in the rightness of their cause, they were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor by openly declaring war against their lawful government.  When the British imposed excise taxes so small it would be a rounding error on our current tax burden, those men did everything from tar and feather the tax collectors to raiding British ships and throwing their tea into the ocean.  Finally, when the British said lay down your arms, they gave them to them, one bullet at a time.  These were men that would rather die on their feet then live on their knees, and the most powerful military on earth couldn't weaken their resolve to fight till the end.

The American revolutionaries, including many Bostonians, knew their rights, were willing to vigorously defend them, and could tell when someone pissed on their leg and told them it was raining.  And what do we see in Boston today?  A home-made explosive kills and injures some people, 2 teenagers are on the loose, and somehow we've gotten to the point where the proper response is for the government to forcibly and completely shut down a city of 1 million people.  The word martial law was avoided as much as possible, but it's hard to find a difference between martial law and "shelter-in-place" when no one is allowed out of their homes or offices while tanks and soldiers in Darth Vader costumes with fully automatic weapons are patrolling the streets going door-to-door.  Was there outrage at this ridiculous display of bravado and hubris by the part of our government masters?  Did the invaded home owners say "Wait here dammit, this is my private property, and you're not allowed here without a warrant specifically describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized!"  No, the Bostonians meekly emerged from hiding readily equipped with American flags and eager to chant "USA! USA! USA !"

If you don’t fall into one of the above categories, then congratulations.  You're unburdened by the dilemma of thinking through the consequences of the 4th of July.  You don't need to worry about sticking out by abstaining from the festivities while everyone else enjoys their day off work.  Eat your hot dogs, drink till you're stupid, and enjoy the fireworks.  If some blame-America-firster gets in your face, tell them "God Bless 'Merica, and if you don't like it, you can geeet out".  You have no reason to feel ashamed by celebrating Independence Day.  The only thing you have to be ashamed of is yourself.


It's Time to Ban Spoons and End Obesity

In 2004 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranked obesity as the number one health risk facing America.  Obesity currently results in an estimated 400,000 deaths a year in the United States and costs the national economy nearly $122.9 billion annually.  Experts believe that obesity will soon become America's number one killer, overtaking smoking and leaving other forms of death such as car accidents, gun violence, and terrorist attacks in the dust.

For far too long America has been in the grips of the special interests that lobby our congressmen and have hijacked our government to keep Americans addicted to the #1 cause of obesity: Spoons.  But all that is about to change.

Having a rational debate about the undeniable relationship between America's obsession with spoons and our obesity epidemic is no longer taboo.  Ever since Mayor Bloomberg heroically led the country in protecting us from the evils of large sugary drinks, people everywhere are becoming more used to the idea of applying this kind of forward-thinking leadership in other areas.

Just a few years ago the ignorant individualists clinging to their spoons would protest that we as a country have no right to regulate or ban their use.  Thankfully, as a result of our new free health-care system, these ignoramuses can no longer hide behind this excuse.  We are all paying for each other's health-care, and if you harm yourself through the criminal use of spoons, then we all suffer the consequences.

The pro-spoon pro-obesity pro-death industrial complex is finally losing its iron grip on our country.  We are at the tipping point.  Now is the time to act.   I will prove without a shadow of a doubt that spoons cause obesity, and I will give you the solution for how we can end obesity once and for all by enacting responsible Spoon Control legislation on the path towards a total ban of this evil utensil.

The Evidence is Undeniable

Study after study has proven the relationship between spoons and obesity.  Recent studies surveying every country on the planet have established an irrefutable link between countries that have a high number of spoons per capita and the percentage of the population that is obese.  A random sampling of these countries clearly show that the trend line of spoons per capita is a perfect match with a country's rate of obesity.

Western Countries have high obesity rates and high spoons per capita.  The Asian countries, which use chop sticks, use fewer spoons and therefore have a lower obesity rate.  Finally, the third world countries have no spoons and no obesity.  The truth is inescapable.

The logic is obvious.  As we can see above, the western countries including the United States, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all have a high rate of spoons per capita and a correspondingly high rate of obesity.  As we move to the Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan, their obesity rate dramatically decreases along with their lower number of spoons per capita, as they use chop sticks.  Finally, the more enlightened countries such as Haiti, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe have virtually no spoons at all and they have managed to completely eradicate the plague of obesity.

More spoons = more obesity.  There is no other possible explanation.

No One Needs a Spoon

The founders of this country used wooden spoons to eat their simple meals, and they never would have dreamed that in the future these utensils would be used to consume the incredibly fatty foods that Americans eat today.  Luckily, the American forefathers were smart enough to found this country with a constitution that is a living document and is flexible enough to face the challenges of our changing world.

The founding fathers with their wooden spoons would be shocked at how we abuse them today.

Clearly, no one has a legitimate reason to own a spoon in this day and age, as they are only used today to consume large amounts of unhealthy and fatty foods.  A simple knife and fork is all that is needed to eat a healthy diet of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, dairy products, and meat.  For those that insist on eating soup and cereal, surely they can just drink it directly out of the bowl.

Unfortunately, many Americans are so brainwashed towards the use of spoons that we may not be able to enact a complete spoon ban right away.  In that case we can at least start with responsible Spoon Control legislation, such as no more than 1 spoon per household, with compulsory spoon registration to ensure this regulation is enforced.  Only teaspoon sized spoons should be allowed, as anything larger is just asking for abuse.  In addition, we must ensure that properly registered spoons are kept at least 15 feet away from the refrigerator where fatty foods like ice cream are stored.  But even these steps will not stop the obesity epidemic; we will never eradicate ourselves of this horrible disease until every last spoon is destroyed.

Do it for the Children

It's one thing to try and make an argument that adults should be able to make their own choices when it comes to spoons, but that logic does not apply at all when we talk about the children.  Children are young, and sweet, and innocent.  If we don't come together as a nation and protect them from the evils of spoons, no one else will.

Consider how the pro-spoon pro-child-obesity lobbyists have infiltrated the media and programmed our children to love spoons before they could even understand what they were watching.  The most obvious example was the cartoon show "The Tick", where the supposed hero's catch-phrase was, you guessed it, "Spooooooooon!" Is there nothing these monsters won't do?

They brainwash our children to use spoons and become obese.  The pro-spoon forces are pure evil.

The pro-spoon media programming was just the beginning.  Over the last 30 years childhood obesity has tripled.  According to the CDC, in 2008 more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.  The following chart shows the vicious cycle of how spoons lead to childhood obesity and to a lifetime of misery.  Even worse, the cycle continues from generation to generation, with parents blindly passing on their spoon addiction to their children.  If these parents cannot keep spoons from their children to keep them fit and healthy, we as a country must do it for them.  It is time to break the cycle!

What You Can Do About It

Now is the time to finally put an end to obesity once and for all.  Luckily the solution is very simple.  You don't have to persuade and convince others to stop using spoons and becoming obese, and you don't even have to try and forcefully stop them yourselves.  All you have to do is sign this petition and demand that our government enact responsible spoon control legislation!

The great thing about our country is if we can get enough people behind this movement we can force everyone else to do what we want.  When someone else isn't smart enough to do the right thing, we can force them to do it through our government.  It's called democracy , and it's what makes America the freest country in the world.

So please, if you care about children, and if you want to stop obesity, sign the petition and join us in this heroic battle of good versus evil.


The Constitution and Intellectual Honesty

Should we promote healthy eating habits?  Should we go to Mars?  Should we protect intellectual property on the internet?  When I respond to loaded questions like these, I try to be very careful to explore all of the implications and structure my arguments against the proposals into logical categories.  Why do I assume I am against?  Because 99% of the time the person asking these questions equates the word "we" with the government.  Should the parent promote healthy eating habits to his child?  Certainly.  Should a group of individuals calling themselves the government print or steal money to pay for the promotion of eating habits they define to be healthy?  A resounding No!

Thus, I may make a moral argument that any activity the government engages in, however benign on the surface, is paid for with stolen money and is enforced with the barrel of a gun, and that general insight is a sufficient reason to be against it.  I may make an economic argument that if we trace the consequences of a given government policy, not just for the short run, but for the long term, and not just the impacts to one group, but to all groups, we will find numerous reasons in equity and justice to be against it.  I may also make pragmatic arguments using history to show examples of previous instances when good intentions mixed with government power had very bad outcomes.

However, my simplest argument, and the one that I have the most difficulty convincing people of, is the constitutional argument.  This is the explanation that Ron Paul has given hundreds of times when asked why he was the lone dissenting voice in a 434 to 1 vote.  He will say the constitution doesn't give the authorization to create a department of homeland security, or to pass an anti-spam e-mail bill, or to give a gold medal to Mother Theresa.  In some cases, it might even be a bill that Dr. No would like to pass, but if he doesn't find authorization in the constitution, he feels that he must obey his oath of office and vote no just the same.  So what is it that Dr. Ron Paul sees in the Constitution that the other 434 members of Congress do not?

It's safe to say that Dr. Paul would not agree with my college professor who told me that the constitution is a "living document" that can change and adapt to meet the challenges of the day.  He wasn't referring to the ability to amend the constitution, but rather to re-interpret it in order to discover new powers that eluded previous administrations.  Rather than take this "living document" approach to interpretation, Dr. Paul would say that he accepts a strict or literal interpretation of the constitution: it is written in English, and it means what it says.

Is the constitution a blank slate that be interpreted to give the federal government the power to write and enforce any law it can pass?  Or does the federal government only have the 17 powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, with all other powers belonging to the States and to the people?  Unlike Nancy Pelosi, who responded, "Are you serious?" when a reporter asked her where the Constitution grants Congress authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate, I think this is a very serious question that is long overdue for open, honest dialogue.

My goal is to convince you that history, logic, and intellectual honesty are on the side of a strict interpretation of the constitution.  While we may differ on what a government should be able to do, we need to come to an agreement on what our government can do.  If you want to change the rules, then amend the constitution.  It's been done before, and it can be done again.  I will even propose an amendment that would legalize all of the unconstitutional practices engaged in by our government to show that I am sincere about wanting a level playing field where we all follow the same rules and know the boundaries of what our government can and cannot do.

Drafting this proposed amendment is the least I can do, because the current arrangement, over a century old, of having our politicians take a sworn oath to protect, defend, and enforce a document that they either do not read, do not understand, or purposefully work to subvert, is a shameful practice not worthy of a free people.

I first heard this proposition in Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class.  Take the Red Pill.

Constitution 101

Most have heard of divided powers or checks and balances, but may not understand what that means in practice, especially in light of how the federal government operates today.  At an over-simplified level, think of the British Monarchy that American revolutionaries fought a war against.  Ignoring the few restrictions imposed by Magna Carta, the King of England could write, enforce, and judge the laws of the land.  All sovereign power resided in the King.  While Hamilton and his branch of the founding fathers wanted to bring this form of government to America, the only way to sell the 13 colonies then united under the Articles of Confederation into ratifying the Constitution was to tell them that they were setting up a government of divided powers, relieving the colonists of the concern that they were setting up a government just as powerful and prone to tyranny as the one they just fought off.

Thus, instead of granting all sovereign powers to a single man or group of oligarchs, the constitution claimed to divide the powers normally exercised by a king amongst different branches and groups of people, thinking that their individual ambitions would prevent power from flowing to a central source, as each branch would want to defend their powers in their own self-interest.  Hence, Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution set up the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, respectively.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives".  The power to legislate is the power to write laws.  Article II of the Constitution defines the executive Power, the power to execute or enforce the laws, in a President of the United States.  Article III grants the judicial Power, to judge the laws and cases under the Constitution, to a Supreme Court.

Going back to Article I, we find that the first few sections define what Congress is, how they will be elected, how the Senate and House of Representatives will interact with each other, and how bills will be proposed and passed.  It isn't until Article I, Section 8 that we arrive at the 17 Powers delegated to the Congress, that I argue, are the only powers that legislation can be passed in pursuance thereof.

Section 8 starts, "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."  It then enumerates 16 additional powers, including the power to borrow Money, to coin Money, to set up Post Offices, to declare War, to provide a Navy, and others.  It concludes with the last power, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof."

It seems clear to me that the only powers the federal government would have are those delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8, and the only laws they would be able to pass would be those necessary and proper to carry out those laws.  Thus, to execute the power of establishing a post office, the congress could enact legislation to tax or borrow money for its creation, make purchase orders to build the post offices, hire people to be post men, etc.

Not yet trusting the arguments of the federalists who were promoting the adoption of the Constitution, the states wouldn't ratify it until it was amended with the Bill of Rights.  This amendment detailed some of the specific individual rights that no government law could violate, and reiterated the understanding made by the federalists that the federal government was one of specific and limited powers.  Article X of the Bill of Rights makes it plain as day what powers the government had, and for those powers it doesn't have, who has them:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What more needs to be said?  If something is reserved to me, can it also be yours?  Clearly, the only laws the federal government can constitutionally pass, execute, and judge upon are those in pursuit of their 17 enumerated powers.  All other powers not delegated belong to the States, and to the people.  So while there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the State of Rhode Island from creating a Department of Education, or prohibiting me, one of the people, from buying and selling health insurance, this is not something the federal government can engage in.

Answering Objections

The first objection that I want to answer questions my authority to have any kind of opinion as to what is constitutional.  Where is my black robe and gavel?  Only those dressed in such a costume are allowed to think about the limits of federal government power.  In other words, "Isn't it the supreme court's job to decide what is and isn't constitutional?"

The Supreme Court's powers are outlined in Article III, and no where does it say that they are to be the sole deciders of what is or isn't constitutional.  That idea didn't originate in the Constitution, but was declared by the Supreme Court itself in Marbury vs. Madison.  How does that have any more legitimacy than if the Congress passed legislation declaring itself the sole decider of constitutionality, or if the President executed a signing statement declaring that he is sole decider of what is or isn't constitutional, or if the State legislature of Tennessee did the same by passing legislation?  The answer is they are all wrong, none are the final authority on issues of constitutionality, as they are all co-equal judges of the constitutional contract to which they are equal parties.

This idea of all the states being co-equal judges as to matters of constitutionality is not a new idea, but is as old as the Constitution itself.  Thomas E. Wood's book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century highlights many important documents from State legislatures as they affirmed their responsibility to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional, such as the notorious Alien and Sedition Act.  While the Alien and Sedition Act was used by my college professor as proof that the constitution doesn't really mean anything, since it was clearly violated with this law so close to its creation, he ignored important history from the states that makes the opposite case.

Consider the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which explicitly declared the Alien and Sedition Act unconstitutional because it "exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government" and even worse is "positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto".

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were approved by the Kentucky House and Senate, and the first paragraph is worth quoting in its entirety for its clear and unambiguous language:
"Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Just because the Supreme Court declared itself the final judge of constitutionality contrary to the view the States historically held, this doesn't preclude the Supreme Court from making correct decisions.  So let's look at the three arguments they use when declaring that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 are constitutional.

General Welfare

Can the federal government make any law that is for the "general welfare"?  Again, let's quote the offending passage in the context that this was the first of the 17 enumerated powers:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
For those that like arguments in the form of an appeal to authority as well as majority rule, we see that two of the founding fathers, author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, as well as James Madison, father of the Constitution, both took a narrow interpretation of the general welfare clause against Alexander Hamilton, who was the first to argue a broad interpretation.

Jefferson explained,
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
Similarly, James Madison said that spending must be tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, and is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

So Alexander Hamilton disagreed, arguing that spending is an enumerated power that Congress can exercise independently of the others if it can be construed to benefit the general welfare.  Is this all there is to the story, an honest disagreement about what general welfare really means?

Unfortunately, after reading The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and Thomas DiLorenzo's book Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today, I have come to take a more conspiratorial view of this matter.  In the Federalist Papers, of which Hamilton was one of the main authors, we see them assuring the public to not take the warnings of the anti-Federalists seriously.  The Federalists said again and again that State's rights would be intact, just as they were under the Articles of Confederation, and that this federal government would be a limited one of definite powers.  Yet, just as soon as the Constitution was ratified, we see Hamilton singing another tune as secretary of Treasury in his Report on Manufacturers where he first claims "the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite" and "The terms general Welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed".

Not only did Hamilton promote this treacherous idea during his tenure as secretary of Treasury, but he also first promoted the idea of "implied powers" in his Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States.  He wrote, "there are implied, as well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter."

This is what I mean by intellectual honesty.  During the secret Constitutional Conventions Hamilton was promoting all kinds of ideas that were shot down. He wanted the Constitution to create an all powerful National government with a permanent president and senate, where the president would be a kind of king who would appoint governors over vassal states with veto power over the laws.  He didn't get what he wanted, so he said what needed to be said in order to convince the states to ratify the Constitution, and the moment it was passed he used his influence to promote a reinterpretation to create his national government of unlimited powers using stealth and lawyer tricks because he couldn't succeed in open and honest debate.

Interstate Commerce

The interstate commerce clause has been used to justify every power usurped by the federal government from Obamacare, to gun-free school zones, to fining someone for growing too much wheat.  It is the third power expressly delegated to congress, and it says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
So what does regulate mean?  Today, regulate means to create laws and rules.  Our toilets are federally regulated by the government to use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush.  Guns are regulated with rules concerning how many bullets can be in a magazine.  Traffic is regulated by signs, lights, and an army of police to enforce them.

But what did regulate mean when the Constitution was written?  Even the Supreme Court let out a bit of honesty in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005:
"The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation.  For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible."
James Madison argued that regulate meant to "keep regular", and the power to regulate commerce was for the purpose of preventing the states from enacting tariffs against each other that would favor in-state businesses.  So Virginia couldn't impose a 100% tax on its imports of candles to encourage its domestic candle-makers at the expense of Vermont's candle-makers, thus keeping commerce between the states "regular".

The definition of regulate can be confirmed in other areas of the Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:
"To coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures".
Does anyone think this meant to pass and enforce laws about what the value of money must be worth?  No, it meant to keep the value of money regular.  The colonies had numerous disasters experimenting with paper money prior to the Constitution, so they gave Congress the power of normalizing the value of money by limiting it to gold and silver coin, which cannot be wildly inflated like paper money.

We also see the word regulate in Article II of the Bill of Rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Today, the word regulate supposedly gives the government the power to dictate how many rounds my rifle can have, how long the barrel must be, and whether or not it can be suppressed, semi-auto or full-auto, etc.  However, when the Constitution was written a well regulated Militia did not mean the government could tell the colonists what types of muskets they could use, as shown in The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook.  He convincingly shows that a well regulated Militia referred to every able-bodied man aged 16-60 having a properly working firearm and being trained in its use and ready in a moment's notice to use it should the call be made.

In his article Can the Government force you to eat broccoli, Judge Andrew Napolitano puts this argument to rest in its historical context.
"The language in the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress “to regulate” commerce among the states. When James Madison wrote that phrase, he and the other Framers were animated by the startling lack of interstate commerce among the states under the Articles of Confederation.  This was the period after the Revolution and before the Constitution when the merchants and bankers who financed the Revolution also controlled the state legislatures.  They were both creditors, because they had lent money to the state governments to finance the war, and debtors, because they now controlled the machinery of state government that owed them money.

What did they do? They were the original corporatists and crony capitalists.  They formed cartels to diminish in-state competition, and they imposed tariffs to discourage out-of-state competition.  Thus, in order to turn 13 mini-economies into one large economy, and to protect the freedom to trade, Madison used the word “regulate,” which to him and his colleagues meant “to keep regular.”  So, the Constitution delegated to Congress the constitutional power to keep interstate commerce regular by prohibiting state tariffs, and it did so."
Necessary and Proper

Can the federal government make any law that is "necessary and proper"?  Necessary and proper for what?  While I risk fighting a straw-man, I don't see a way to rebut this view other than by showing the context in which it is written.

At the end of Article 1, Section 8, after expressly delegating 17 powers to the Congress, it concludes by saying:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof."
So tell me again, what laws does Congress have the authority to make?  "The laws necessary for executing the foregoing Powers."  Could that be referring to the 17 enumerated powers directly preceding, or foregoing, that clause?  Thomas Jefferson said that necessary meant necessary, not just convenient, for executing the foregoing powers, otherwise what is the point of enumerating powers if the government also has this blank check for any power it can conceive of?  Even Alexander Hamilton defended the necessary and proper clause against this very interpretation in Federalist No. 33, saying that it only clarified the proper means for executing the "certain specified powers" with "necessary and proper laws".

Given we have intellectual arch-enemies Jefferson and Hamilton agreeing on this, the last place we have to look for the federal government's mythical blank check is in the previously mentioned "implied powers" doctrine promoted by Hamilton.  To counter this, I've saved my best argument for last, the historical facts and the logical implications of the necessity for the 18th amendment.

The 18th amendment

While not as popular as the first 10 amendments, the 18th is worth quoting in full because it is the corner stone of the best argument I have for intellectually honesty through adopting a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
Why did the federal government amend the constitution in this way? Why does Section 2 grant Congress and the States the power to enforce this article by legislation? Why didn't they just pass legislation with the language of Section 1? Drumroll….. Because it would have been unconstitutional!

Remember, the 18th amendment was ratified in 1919 and went into effect in 1920.  This was long before the great depression and the onslaught of unconstitutional offices, departments, laws, and regulations that came with FDR packing the Supreme Court with judges sympathetic to his goals.  But the laws on the books in 1920 applied then as they do now.  Then, as now, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any undelegated powers usurped by the federal government are unauthoritative, void, and have no force of law.  If the Constitution required that the federal government of 1920 required them to amend the Constitution to grant them the power to make alcohol illegal before they could execute legislation to that effect, then the same prerequisite applies today to any power not expressly delegated.

That being said, we must now come to the sad conclusion that Michael Badnarik first shocked me with many years ago:

Most of the things the federal government does are unconstitutional.

So what do we do about it?  I'm hoping to educate the American people to this disturbing fact so that we can reach a common baseline understanding before we can begin to have an open and honest debate about the direction our government is going and where we should go from here.

Before we should ask the question, "Should the government do X", we must take a queue from Dr. Ron Paul and first ask, "Is the government allowed to do X"?  If the answer is in the negative, then we should follow the rules and first amend the Constitution to grant the power before it can pass legislation to enforce it.

As President Washington said in his farewell address,
"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation… the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Proposing the 28th Amendment

Using language similar to that found in the Constitution and its amendments, I am proud to unveil my proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution.  Anyone familiar with my views will know that I am adamantly against most of the powers I am proposing that we give the federal government, but I do this in the same spirit that Dr. Paul used when he introduced a bill to declare war and promptly voted against it.  His thinking went that if we're going to go to war, we might as well maintain the rule of law, declare war constitutionally, and hold our elected representatives accountable for the decision.  Similarly, if the federal government is going to usurp all of these undelegated powers outside of law, we might as well amend the constitution to give them the powers to do the things they are doing anyway, in order to restore the rule of law, re-open an intellectually honest debate, get an accurate assessment of how far we've fallen, and give all of us citizens fair warning of what is coming.


In the pursuance of intellectual honesty, it has been seen fit to amend the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land, such that the powers and responsibilities that have been usurped, as well as the powers and responsibilities that have been abandoned, relinquished, and renounced, shall be granted or transferred to the appropriate branch of government, be it the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial, such that the powers and responsibilities that have henceforth been exercised by the federal government of the United States, including its departments, administrations, agencies, and agents thereof, shall be made lawful and constitutional, while repealing certain articles of amendment to the Constitution that purport to restrict the federal government of the United States' lawful ability to infringe upon the rights of the people, in favor of an assignment of the privileges that may be bestowed or revoked to the people by their sovereign government.

Section 1. The Congress shall be granted the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation:
  • To create an Army Corps of Engineers, which shall have full regulatory authority over the waterways, lakes, and marinas of United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
  • To create a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF), and Explosives, which shall have full regulatory authority to declare any Arm, including, but not limited to, machineguns, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, destructive devices, AOWs and silencers, illegal to possess, transport, manufacture, or sell;
  • To create a Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which shall have the authority to own, control, and manage land including, but not limited to, land suitable for oil, gas, and coal operations;
  • To create a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which shall have full regulatory authority concerning diseases, birth defects, environmental health, workplace safety and health, and vaccinations;
  • To create a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which shall have the responsibility of collecting, analyzing, and dissemination intelligence, as well as conducting clandestine operations in the United States and abroad, including, but not limited to the powers to engage in assassinations, government overthrows, arms and narcotic trafficking, and false-flag terrorism;
  • To create a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which shall have full regulatory powers concerning commodity futures and option markets;
  • To create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB); which shall have full regulatory authority over banks, credit unions, and other financial corporations;
  • To create a Department of Agriculture, which shall have full regulatory authority over the possession, manufacture, transportation, packaging, labeling, and selling of food and beverages; the power to create a Welfare program for the distribution of Food Stamps; the power to subsidize public and private school lunch programs, and to determine the criteria of eligibility thereof;
  • To create a Department of Commerce, which shall have regulatory authority over areas of trade, economic development, technology, environmental stewardship, and sustainable development;
  • To create a Department of Education, which shall have full regulatory authority related to funding education, administering the distribution of funds, and enforcing discrimination laws, as well as the power to grant public loans, and to guarantee the backing of private loans for the purpose of education;
  • To create a Department of Energy, which shall have full regulatory authority to create rules and regulations governing the forms and manner that energy shall be manufactured, sold, or consumed for private or public purpose;
  • To create a Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which shall have the authority to engage in the business and activities of research, public health, food and drugs, and health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid;
  • To create a Department of Homeland Security, which shall have full regulatory authority over the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof concerning Counterterrorism, Border Security, Immigration, and Cybersecurity;
  • To create a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which shall have full regulatory authority concerning matters related to community planning and development, home owning, home buying, real estate transactions,
  • To create a Department of Labor, which shall have regulatory authority concerning matters including, but not limited to, the welfare of wage earners, job seekers, retirees, working conditions, advancement opportunities, and mandated work-related benefits and rights;
  • To create a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which shall have full regulatory authority to declare any plant, chemical, or derivative substance illegal to possess, transport, manufacture, or sell;
  • To create a Farm Credit Administration (FCA), which shall have regulatory authority over banks, associations, and related entities of the Farm Credit System (FCS), which shall ensure compliance with the Farm Credit Act of 1971 and FCA regulations, and which shall administer loans and grants to individuals and corporations that may or may not be engaged in agriculture.
  • To create a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which shall have federal law enforcement power concerning the areas including, but not limited to, terrorism, foreign intelligence and espionage, cyber attacks and high-technology crimes, public corruption, civil rights, national criminal organizations, white-collar crime, and violent crime;
  • To create a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); with the power to insure and guarantee the checking and savings accounts of public and private banks, thrift institutions, and other financial corporations, as well as the power to enforce compliance with consumer protection laws, including, but not limited to, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth-In-Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act;
  • To create a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which shall have full regulatory, enforcement, planning, and management authority concerning any natural, man made, or economic hazard, including, but not limited to, terrorism, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, floods, fires, and hazardous spills
  • To create a Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shall have full regulatory and enforcement authority to regulate all trade and business if such can be perceived to concern consumer protection and competition, fraud, deception, mergers, acquisitions, or unfair business practices including charging too much, charging too little, or colluding with other businesses to charge the same amount for a good or service;
  • To create a General Services Administration (GSA), which shall have full regulatory authority including, but not limited to, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Federal Management Regulation and Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
  • To create a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which shall have the responsibilities concerning technology related to air and space, including, but not limited to Aeronautics, Human Exploration and Operations, and the exploration of the solar system;
  • To create a National Institute of Health (NIH), which shall fund medical research in universities and research institutions;
  • To create a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which shall have non-regulatory powers to promote innovation and industrial competitiveness, and advance measurement science, standards, and technologies;
  • To create a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), which shall have the power to engage in the business of transportation via trains and light rail;
  • To create a National Weather Service, which shall provide weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas;
  • To create a National Security Agency (NSA), which shall have the power to clandestinely collect, process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information, of both foreign and domestic origin, as well as having full regulatory authority of security regulations covering operating practices, and the transmission, handling, and distribution of signals intelligence and communications;
  • To create a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which shall have full regulatory authority governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issue orders to licensees, and adjudicate legal matters;
  • To create a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which shall have full regulatory power concerning securities being offered for public sale, corporate reporting, proxy solicitations, tender offers, insider trading, and registration of exchanges, associations, brokers, dealers, transfer agents, and clearing agencies, as well as enforcement power of laws governing the securities industry including, but not limited to, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Act of 1934, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010;
  • To create a Social Security Administration (SSA), which shall have the power to lay direct taxes on income, as well as the power to give money to persons based on age, wealth, and disability; -And
  • To create a Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which shall full regulatory authority over all the airports of United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, including the right to sexually assault patrons of said airports, and the authority to shut down any air traffic to an airport that refuses to comply with said Administration.
Section 2. The Congress shall renounce their power to coin money, and shall be granted the power to delegate this responsibility, as well as the power to create paper and electronic fiat money, to a private central bank, which shall be the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 3. The Congress shall renounce their power to declare War, and shall be granted the power to delegate this responsibility to the President of the United States of America.

Section 4. The House of Representatives shall renounce their power to originate all bills for raising revenue, and the Senate shall be granted the power to concurrently originate such bills.

Section 5. The Congress shall renounce their sole ownership of the power to legislate, and the President of the United States of America shall be granted the concurrent power to legislate through Presidential Signing Statements.

Section 6. The first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To regulate religious institutions through the formation of 501c3 corporations;
  • To create "free-speech zones", to grant the privilege of speech, and to repeal said privilege;
  • To regulate the Press, particularly concerning, but not limited to, matters related to national security; -And
  • To arrest the people for peaceably assembling, including, but not limited to, when such assembly shall coincide with a national or international meeting such as NATO, the UN, the World Bank, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group.
Section 7. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To grant and revoke the privilege of keeping and bearing Arms based on criminal record, education, medical history, or any other qualification deemed proper; -And
  • To prohibit the possession, manufacture, importation, transportation, or sale of Arms, including, but not limited to, machineguns, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, destructive devices, AOWs and silencers.
Section 8. The fourth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To search and seize any person, house, paper, and effect, for any reason that any agent of the Federal government shall believe to be reasonable; -And
  • To monitor, intercept, and record all electronic communications.
Section 9. The fifth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To hold any person, including American citizens, indefinitely, without the benefit of any trial, for any reason;
  • To grant the President the power to order the assassination of any person, including American citizens, for any reason;
  • To take private property without just compensation for private or public use under the authority of eminent domain; -And
  • To confiscate the private property of a person that is charged with a crime, including the freezing of bank accounts.
Section10. The sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To charge a person with a crime without being informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be charged by secret witnesses, including, but not limited to, accusations involving national security; -And
  • To be deny a person charged with a crime the privileges of obtaining witnesses in his favor, a public trial, and an impartial jury, including, but not limited to, crimes involving national security.
Section 11. The seventh article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To deny the privilege of trial by jury, including, but not limited to, charges involving traffic violations, family courts, and other administrative misdemeanors and felonies.
Section 12. The eighth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To impose excessive bail and fines, including, but not limited to, hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars; -And
  • To inflict cruel and unusual punishments, including, but not limited to, enhanced interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, sexual torture, and the technique known as "Diesel Therapy", whereby a prisoner is shackled at the feet and handcuffed at the wrists, reinforced with a box-like structure which stiffens the chains and locks the wrists at a 90-degree angle, whereby the handcuffs are connected to a waist chain that is connected to another chain which connects the shackles, which pinch the nerves and restrict the flow of blood causing severe pain and swelling, often resulting in damage to the feet, as toenails under pressure from blood-blisters become infected and deformed, requiring surgery or the pulling of the nails out by the roots, whereby the prisoner will be transported from bus to bus and onto plane after plane, being shuttled from one prison to another, for weeks on end, 20 hours per day in chains.
Section 13. The ninth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To grant all administrative rights to the federal government of the United States, including its departments, administrations, agencies, and agents thereof, whereby privileges will be granted and revoked to the people, at the full discretion of any agent of the United States.
Section 14. The tenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, in pursuance of granting the Congress the following powers, and the ability to enforce these powers by appropriate legislation;
  • To grant all powers delegated, implied, or conceivable imagined to the federal government of the United States, including its departments, administrations, agencies, and agents thereof.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...