Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $79,200
90%  
Woo hoo!! We have yellow!! And now less than $8.8k to go!! Let's git 'er done.

Posts by JOHN W K

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Obama's desire to close down GITMO may be about his nefarious alliances.

    12/19/2015 2:01:40 PM PST · 1 of 13
    JOHN W K
  • Trump spoken the truth regarding Paul Ryan’s despotic spending bill

    12/19/2015 10:35:45 AM PST · 1 of 30
    JOHN W K
  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/28/2015 2:52:46 PM PST · 38 of 41
    JOHN W K to semimojo
    I'll ask you the question I posed to the author of the original post. Do you think a state can refuse residency to a legal resident of the US (assuming no criminal activity)? Remember, a refugee becomes a legal resident of the US once admitted by the federal government.

    Your question suggests our federal government is authorized to allow entry to all who arrive at our ports of entry and grant them legal status.

    JWK

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/28/2015 2:38:21 PM PST · 36 of 41
    JOHN W K to semimojo
    What you quote has to do with the reason for which the federal government was granted a power over "naturalization" . I think your misunderstanding is confusing naturalization with immigration.

    JWK

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/28/2015 9:36:34 AM PST · 31 of 41
    JOHN W K to semimojo
    you did write: Do you think a state has the right to deny residency to a legal US resident who has committed no crime?

    I certainly did not bring up that question in the OP.

    JWK

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/28/2015 9:32:47 AM PST · 30 of 41
    JOHN W K to semimojo
    So does that mean it's up to the individual states to determine who gets admitted? If so that seems to run contrary contrary to the arguments made in the original post that no state should be able to admit a foreigner that the other states may find objectionable.

    There is nothing in the OP suggesting what you state above. Was there some specific wording which gave you that impression?

    JWK

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/28/2015 9:29:14 AM PST · 28 of 41
    JOHN W K to semimojo
    Did I even suggest that? Hell No!

    JWK

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/27/2015 1:51:40 PM PST · 20 of 41
    JOHN W K to Truth29; Bushbacker1; tumblindice; Jack Hammer; All
    Are Foxnews personalities delinquent in their fair and balanced reporting?

    I wonder why Judge Napolitano was not asked by a Foxnews personality to point to the wording in our Constitution under which the federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then allows the federal government to force a State to accept any of them.

    Where is the fair and balanced reporting on Foxnews with regard to this issue? It appears that Foxnews repeatedly asserts our federal government has exclusive power over "immigration", but constantly fails to establish the wording in our Constitution granting this power to our federal government. WHY?

    JWK

    The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/27/2015 1:44:56 PM PST · 19 of 41
    JOHN W K to Amendment10
    Thank you for your contribution!

    JWK

    The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

  • Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate!

    11/27/2015 9:17:06 AM PST · 1 of 41
    JOHN W K
  • Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

    11/23/2015 5:05:46 AM PST · 25 of 25
    JOHN W K to UMCRevMom@aol.com
    What is the point behind that link?

    JWK

    The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

  • Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

    11/22/2015 2:22:01 PM PST · 23 of 25
    JOHN W K to Oatka
    I'm still waiting for someone at FoxNews to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees" or the tens of millions of poverty stricken poorly education and low skilled populations of Mexico and Central America.

    JWK

    The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

  • Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

    11/21/2015 1:08:14 PM PST · 21 of 25
    JOHN W K to RitaOK
    I'm still waiting for someone at FoxNews which constantly claims the federal government has exclusive power over "immigration" to quote the wording in our Constitution under which the president or Congress has been granted a power to flood a state with unwanted "refugees".

    I certainly cannot find a power delegated to Congress or the President in our written Constitution repealing a power exercised by the States under the Articles of Confederation during which time each state was free to regulate immigration into their own state. But there is an exception made to this power under our existing Constitution which the States knowingly and willingly agreed to ___ the exception being Article 1, Section 9, which reads:

    "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

    The above delegated power allows Congress to lay a tax or duty on the importation of foreigners, but leaves each State otherwise free to admit whom they please and set its own immigration policy in a manner which serves each particular State's interests, general welfare and safety.

    So, the question remains, under what wording in our Constitution has Congress or the president been delegated a power to admit tens of thousands, or even millions of poverty stricken or destitute foreigners on to American soil and then require unwilling states to accept them?

    Let us recall what Chief Justice Marshall emphasized while the ink was barely dry on our existing Constitution:

    "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

    JWK

    The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

  • Yes! Texas can refuse to allow Syrian Refugees into their state!

    11/21/2015 8:23:34 AM PST · 1 of 25
    JOHN W K
  • I’m still waiting to hear Carly Fiorina's three page tax plan

    11/11/2015 9:43:03 AM PST · 17 of 23
    JOHN W K to Colonel_Flagg
    It still keeps alive the socialist experiment allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries, wages, tips, and other lawfully earned incomes. Additionally, the IRS will still be their to directly harass the people.

    JWK

  • I’m still waiting to hear Carly Fiorina's three page tax plan

    11/11/2015 9:05:19 AM PST · 1 of 23
    JOHN W K
  • Obamas deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

    09/10/2015 7:05:10 PM PDT · 28 of 31
    JOHN W K to Vermont Lt
    Congress cannot alter the terms of the Constitution, especially that part which requires a two thirds approval vote for ANY DEALS cooked up by the president. To believe Congress has such power is to assume ”the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.

    Aside from that, how can any patriotic American support Obama's nuke deal which requires America to defend a terrorist government if that government's nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities are attacked? Why on earth would Obama obligate the United States to defend a terrorist government?

    See Kerry Admits U.S. Will Help Protect Iran’s Nuclear Program From Sabotage

    ” Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

    The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

    “I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

    Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare.”


    JWK




    When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?

  • Obamas deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

    09/10/2015 6:25:22 PM PDT · 26 of 31
    JOHN W K to joethedrummer
    You are spot on! We were warned about submitting to despotism as follows: ”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787

    I think it's time to post every Senators home address on the internet who is in favor of this traitorous deal.

    The ball is in our court!

    JWK

    We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

  • Obamas deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

    09/10/2015 6:18:35 PM PDT · 25 of 31
    JOHN W K to Ray76
    I agree with that completely!

    JWK

  • Obamas deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

    09/10/2015 6:16:44 PM PDT · 23 of 31
    JOHN W K to blueunicorn6
    Stop mixing apples and oranges. Our founders specifically intended, by the wording of our Constitution, to forbid any deals or agreements made by the president with a foreign government to be finalized unless approved by a two thirds vote.

    Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Did you read the OP carefully?

    JWK

    Obama’s nuke deal, if finalized, will guarantee our children and grandchildren will live under the fear of nuclear war like America did under the cold war with the Soviet Union.

  • Obamas deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

    09/10/2015 6:10:17 PM PDT · 21 of 31
    JOHN W K to Vermont Lt

    Congress cannot change the terms of our Constitution, and that includes the two thirds approval requirement for a treaty.

    JWK

  • Obamas deal with terrorist Iran is a TREATY

    09/10/2015 4:21:58 PM PDT · 1 of 31
    JOHN W K
  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/12/2015 6:15:34 AM PDT · 24 of 24
    JOHN W K to 4rcane
    Yes he is in favor of that.

    And what is your opinion with regard to the objections to Carson's tax reform which are listed at the top of this thread?

    For example, Carson's tax plan is designed to seek out and require hard working people living in our nation's inner cities to pay more in taxes than those who prefer to not work and live off the public dole. This concept is right out of the playbook of socialism, and we have seen what has happened in socialist Greece. Why on earth would a self-described "conservative" promote such an evil tax?

    I wonder if Carson agrees with the rule of apportionment as applied to each state's representation in Congress. If he does, then why not apply the same rule to direct taxation as our founders intended? Does he only agree with one man one vote, and reject one vote one dollar?

    JWK

    Are you really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?

  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/11/2015 2:29:56 PM PDT · 21 of 24
    JOHN W K to SuzyQue
    Carson's plan does not get rid of taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes. Neither does Huckabee's!

    JWK

  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/11/2015 2:26:40 PM PDT · 20 of 24
    JOHN W K to SuzyQue
    I am the author.

    JWK

    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/11/2015 2:23:55 PM PDT · 19 of 24
    JOHN W K to Sam Clements

    On that I agree completely!

    JWK

  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/11/2015 2:23:04 PM PDT · 18 of 24
    JOHN W K to Kenny
    A lot of people thought they knew who Obama was. I think it is critical to know exactly what a candidate offers, especially if it keeps the despotic income tax alive.

    JWK

  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/11/2015 10:59:26 AM PDT · 6 of 24
    JOHN W K to PGR88
    An appropriate thought!

    JWK

    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

  • Ban Carson's tax reform: keep the socialist income tax

    08/11/2015 10:46:09 AM PDT · 1 of 24
    JOHN W K
  • Will Donald Trump steal the thunder on tax reform and expose establishment candidates?

    07/13/2015 5:19:43 AM PDT · 14 of 29
    JOHN W K to bonehead4freedom
    I agree!

    JWK

    When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?

  • Will Donald Trump steal the thunder on tax reform and expose establishment candidates?

    07/12/2015 6:56:10 PM PDT · 1 of 29
    JOHN W K
  • Boehner punishes conservatives for upholding Constitution RE: Fast Track

    06/25/2015 6:06:16 AM PDT · 4 of 11
    JOHN W K to Ghost of Philip Marlowe
    And our friends at Fox News continue to ignore the constitutional requirement for a two thirds approval vote for any deals cooked up by our president with foreign countries.

    JWK

  • Boehner punishes conservatives for upholding Constitution RE: Fast Track

    06/25/2015 5:20:38 AM PDT · 1 of 11
    JOHN W K
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/20/2015 7:48:46 AM PDT · 125 of 129
    JOHN W K to InterceptPoint
    Ted Cruz supports keeping the socialist income tax.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/19/2015 6:15:51 AM PDT · 115 of 129
    JOHN W K to WKUHilltopper
    What we do know is, any deals cooked up by the president with foreign powers must receive a two thirds approval vote to become enforceable law. The founder's intentions are crystal clear on this particular issue.

    Every Republican, including Cruz and Rubio, who voted for this crap spat upon our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

    JWK

    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/19/2015 5:08:06 AM PDT · 106 of 129
    JOHN W K to InterceptPoint
    Well, both of them want to keep the socialist "income tax" in addition to ignoring the two thirds required vote for any deals cooked up by Obama.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 7:05:25 PM PDT · 84 of 129
    JOHN W K to Diogenesis
    You are correct about our global governance crowd! Check out the Council on Foreign Relations Global Governance Page: International Institutions and Global Governance: World Order in the 21st Century

    Also, check out the Council on Foreign Relations’ Membership Roster

    Council on Foreign Relations’ Membership Roster

    Chelsea Clinton
    William J. Clinton


    JWK





    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 7:02:53 PM PDT · 83 of 129
    JOHN W K to Diogenesis
    So why do the proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and this includes snakes like Paul Ryan, pretend it is not a treaty? The obvious answer is, to lessen the bribe money which would be needed if a two thirds vote were necessary to approve this traitorous sell out!

    And if you think bribery is not taking place on this issue, here is the evidence that members of our Senate have sold their vote!

    See:Corporations shell out $1.2mn in Senate contributions to fast-track TPP

    “What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 million given, an average of $17,000 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes. Republicans received an average of $19,000 and Democrats received $9,700.

    “It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.”

    And, here is a list of dirt bag traitorous Republican Senators who voted to circumvent our representative system of government and allow the president to usurp Congress' legislative functions:

    Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Rubio, Fla.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

    JWK


    " I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:45:29 PM PDT · 81 of 129
    JOHN W K to Mr. N. Wolfe
    A few days ago on the Sean Hannity show while Jamie Dupree was on and talking about Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal cooked up by Obama with a number of foreign nations, he assured Sean to not be worried about the deal because Congress gets to vote on it before it can become law. And Jamie repeatedly pointed this out.

    What Jamie Dupree did not say is, if Fast Track Trade Authority passes the House, then the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal cooked up by Obama with a number of foreign nations will not need the constitutionally required two thirds vote threshold for approval as our Constitution commands for any deals the president consummates with foreign powers! Fast Track unconstitutionally lowers the two thirds vote threshold needed to a simple majority vote. And this is an irrefutable violation of our founders clear intentions requiring a two thirds vote to approve any deals our president cooks up with foreign countries!

    And why did our wise founding fathers require a two-thirds vote? Hamilton explains why in Federalist No. 75 with respect to the President’s treaty making authority. Hamilton points out the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” because he:

    “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

    In the end, our founders agreed to allow the president to negotiate deals with foreign nations, but only with the constitutional requirement that such deals consummated with foreign countries would not have the force of law unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

    I’m not sure if Jamie Dupree overlooked this critical requirement when discussing FTTPA and the TPP with Sean Hannity, but the facts are what they are and the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority Bill, having lowered the vote threshold to a simple majority for a deal cooked up by the president with foreign nations is an irrefutable violation of our founders expressed language, not to mention that it is intentionally designed to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and violates our Constitution’s separation of powers. In fact, it is designed to do exactly what our founders forbid in crystal clear language.

    JWK



    The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:40:07 PM PDT · 80 of 129
    JOHN W K to Diogenesis
    Fox News ran an ad promoting Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority as being a conservative idea to advance free trade. The truth is, FTTPA is not a “conservative” idea nor is it about “free trade”. It’s about creating a managed trade, managed by a group unelected by the American People who represent the interests of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation, and a majority of whom are foreigners!

    This crap started with the NAFTA, and for the proof of what I have just stated above see Establishment of Binational Panels which were created under the NAFTA, and who now regulate America's commerce with foreign nations instead of Congress [the States and People’s elected representatives] as mandated by our Constitution.

    Fast Track Trade Authority is to enhance the above “managed trade”, which is not managed by the Congress of the United States [the States and People’s representatives] who have exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority is a proposal to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and have internationalists dictate the rules for America’s commerce with foreign nations.

    JWK



    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:34:55 PM PDT · 77 of 129
    JOHN W K to Yardstick
    Your interpretation of what I wrote is wrong.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:03:32 PM PDT · 72 of 129
    JOHN W K to Yardstick
    I have always recognized that Congress has exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Why would you think otherwise?

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:49:24 PM PDT · 69 of 129
    JOHN W K to Sirius Lee
    Sirius Lee wrote:

    The Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon, despite the fact that the army used them as "trench guns". The Supremes ruled that homobamacare was Constitutional as a "tax".

    You can either be a Conservative, or you can keep saying the things you do to excuse the shredding of our Constitution.

    A-freaken men!

    Our Supreme Court has used its power to pretend our Constitution means many things which our founders explicitly rejected when framing our Constitution. A case in point is the Kelo decision in which the Court actually admitted to making the Constitution mean which it thinks it should mean.

    Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:

    ”… while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose”.

    The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

    On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes :

    ”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

    And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?

    “Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

    So, what is TexasFreepers point?

    JWK

    The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling. :

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:25:40 PM PDT · 65 of 129
    JOHN W K to terycarl
    Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:24:21 PM PDT · 64 of 129
    JOHN W K to lodi90
    This is the same crap they did in the Senate!

    Here is a link to the vote tally of H.R. 1314 which was the vehicle used in the Senate for trade promotion authority: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00192

    The votes are grouped in different ways at the site.

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:16:53 PM PDT · 61 of 129
    JOHN W K to TexasFreeper2009
    And where is "executive agreements" listed in our Constitution under the powers delegated to the president?

    Why do you ignore the checks and balanced our founders wrote into the Constitution to limit the president's authority?

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:11:14 PM PDT · 58 of 129
    JOHN W K to TexasFreeper2009
    Actually, you are correct! The TPP are regulations of commerce with foreign nations, and Congress has been granted exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations!

    Under our Constitution, regulations of commerce come into existence by Congress authoring a bill to regulate commerce, debating that bill, amending that bill to accommodate the various state interests and the interests of the people of the United States, and then sending that Bill to the president for his signature or veto. This is how our representative system of government works. Fast Track Trade Authority allows the president to usurp Congress' legislative powers in creating a bill to regulate commerce, and leaves Congress with the President's veto power. And this my friend is not authorized by our written Constitution. Keep in mind that all legislative powers are vested in a Congress of the United States.

    Additionally, all bills for raising revenue are to originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, any trade rules made which affect imposts and duties on imports from foreign nations, which is what the Pacific Rim deal does, must originate in the House of Representatives and not in the Oval Office.

    Fast Track Trade Authority is a blatant attack upon our representative system of government, allows the president to usurp Congress' exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and violates the separation of powers which our founders wrote into our Constitution!

    Do you support this attack upon our constitutionally limited system of government?

    JWK

    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 4:02:50 PM PDT · 1 of 129
    JOHN W K
  • Cato Institute advances myth about Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

    06/12/2015 5:21:48 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    JOHN W K to SoConPubbie
    Ted Cruz is a sell out to the international corporate giants!

    What you fail to mention in your propaganda post is, TPA lowers the required threshold vote to a mere majority vote for any deals cooked up by our President with foreign countries.

    And what was our Founders thinking with regard to our president's power to negotiate treaties? Their fear is expressed in Federalist No. 75 by Hamilton with regard to the President’s treaty making authority and sheds light on why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law.” Hamilton points out the president

    “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

    So, as it turns out, the founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by two thirds of the Senators present. Fast Track would, unconstitutionally, lower the vote requirement to a mere majority vote.

    Ted Cruz is a freaken traitor!

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • Cato Institute advances myth about Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

    06/12/2015 6:39:10 AM PDT · 6 of 8
    JOHN W K to Tucker39
    Actually, the use of FTTPA with regard to regulations of commerce with foreign nations has been challenged as being an attack upon our Constitution's separation of power for over a hundred years!

    Back in the 1980s when I was engaged in a research project at the University of Maryland concerning our nation's founding and our Constitution's legislative intent, I came across a paper published in 1883 titled "TREATY TARIFFS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL" which confirms the existing attempt to use fast track with regard to regulations of commerce are unquestionably unconstitutional!

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.