Political News - Conservative Views -Join the Discussions
The Government Follows a 3000-PAGE Constitution
You might be surprised to learn that the federal government does, by-and-large, follow the US Constitution–but not the one that was penned in 1787.
“Congress does follow the written Constitution,” said Gary Porter, who serves as the Executive Director of the Constitutional Leadership Initiative. He pulled a small booklet from his shirt pocket.
“This is a pocket Constitution,” he said. “It’s 4,400 words. About 7000 words if you count the amendments.” Porter then turned toward a large document on a nearby table. It looked like an encyclopedia.
“Here is the Constitution enforced today,” he said, flipping the book open with some effort.
“This is 3000 pages of Supreme Court rulings showing what every ruling has done to the original words.”
It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation and is available for free on a government website, but a physical copy costs about $300. The document serves as the legal authority for everything that the federal government does.
“Every page represents a grant of power to the federal government,” Porter said.
“This isn’t going to get any smaller,” he said as he thumbed to the back of the monstrosity, revealing perhaps a hundred or more white pages. “Every time they publish this document, they leave a bunch of blank pages at the back for additional rulings that they know are coming.”
So if you think we just need to elect people who pledge to follow the Constitution, think again. With the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause, in particular, Congress can do pretty much whatever it wants. And that’s just two clauses.
“This is the Constitution in operation today,” Porter said. “Unless we make its wording crystal clear, we will continue to operate under this document forever and ever until the whole house of cards comes falling down.”
Porter is a supporter of Convention of States Project. Under their resolution, the states can invoke Article V of the Constitution to establish new limits on the Supreme Court and restore the law of the land to the original Constitution.
saw the title of this thread and again was reminded of a tea party song that I used to enjoy - titled '18 Pages'. I had it saved to TPP's forum, which is now finally being completely closed down making it unavailable to me from there. So I went to youtube which is where I initially found it, not there now - nor hardly anything 'teaparty' movement related. So, I went to a search engine's video feature - again almost NOTHING teaparty movement related.
sad - looks like the masters of the internet universe have pretty well wiped clean most history of the teaparty movement.
too bad about not finding the song too.. it was a well written, well performed enjoyable song and appropriate for the title of this thread = 18 pages has become an overwhelming 3000 and continues to grow rapidly.
I went back to your old TPP page to see if there was a embedded code of the '18 Pages' video. I did find there was an embedded code to copy but using it on several search engines it didn't work. I did a few more searches using the words '18 Pages', '18 Pages Jimmy Joe Lee' on youtube, google and duckduckgo with no luck in finding your video.
thanx Am. I couldn't remember the artist's name. Sounds like you were able to access my stuff there better than I was. All I found when trying was forum posts, my 'my page' wasn't an available option.
looks like he re-worded '18 pages' out of it, and renamed it;
Ah Ha! So, the title has changed.
So, happy you found it Larry.
Larry,...Thanks for that
Communism vs. the Constitution: The Power To Protect Our Free Institutions
Frank B. Ober
American Bar Association Journal
Vol. 34, No. 8 (AUGUST 1948), pp. 645-648, 741-747
Published by: American Bar Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25716519
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb
Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders
McCarran Internal Security Act
Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law
Communist Party National Convention, Keynote Addresses Chair Sam Webb and others delivered keynote addresses at the Communist Party USA’s 30th National Convention, held at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Mr. Webb talked about the 2014 mid-term elections, and argued the stakes were high for tens of millions of Americans struggling to survive in the current economy. Other Communist Party USA officials talked about other domestic and global issues. https://www.c-span.org/video/?320055-1/communist-party-national-con...
Anti-communist oaths persist despite court rulings
Scott Pruitt’s New Rule Could Completely Transform the EPA
April 27, 2018
It would not only undermine 30 years of clean-air regulations, but radically restrict what science the agency is allowed to use.
In one sweeping move, the Trump administration may soon not only destabilize the last three decades of clean air and water rules, but also completely overhaul how the Environmental Protection Agency uses science in its work. If EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s recently-proposed rule gets enacted, it will spark a revolution in environmental regulation. But the question is—will it stand up in court? Read more at https://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2018/04/scott-pruitts-new-rule...
The Congressional Review Act: Frequently
Can a New Administration Undo a Previous Administration's Regulations?
17 States Move to Block EPA Weakening of Fuel-Economy Standards
"States joining California in this suit are part of a broader movement of states, cities, and businesses that are driving down emissions without any help from Washington.”
May 8, 2018
On this Day in History
Militia Act establishes conscription under federal law
On this day in 1792, Congress passes the second portion of the Militia Act, requiring that every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years be enrolled in the militia.
Six days before, Congress had established the president’s right to call out the militia. The outbreak of Shay’s Rebellion, a protest against taxation and debt prosecution in western Massachusetts in 1786-87, had first convinced many Americans that the federal government should be given the power to put down rebellions within the states. The inability of the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation to respond to the crisis was a major motivation for the peaceful overthrow of the government and the drafting of a new federal Constitution.
Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection. Continue reading at http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Republicans Find a New Way to Target Obama’s Rulemaking Legacy
By Ari Natter
May 8, 2018, 3:00 AM CDT
Unprecedented 5th Circuit case tests scope of nationwide injunctions
(Reuters) - For opponents of federal government policies, nationwide injunctions have become an indispensable weapon. The strategy - developed by Republican state Attorneys General and business groups during the Obama administration and widely deployed by Democratic AGs and civil rights organizations in the Trump era - is to challenge new federal rules or regulations in a friendly jurisdiction, seeking an injunction against implementation that will apply across the country. By issuing a nationwide injunction, a single federal judge can halt federal policy. The wisdom and propriety of these injunctions is hotly debated, and the U.S. Supreme Court could curtail them when it issues a ruling in Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s travel ban. But, at least for now, the law allows trial judges broad reach to enjoin rules and regulations far beyond their courtrooms.
Dueling Cosmic Injunctions, DACA and Departmentalism
Court hears U.S. appeal of preliminary injunction that kept DACA program in place
Judges take case under submission, will issue written ruling at later date
On this day, Supreme Court invalidates key FDR program
May 27, 2018 by NCC Staff