Here is my second paper - just out today - on the BBA where I address the version which all the U.S. Senate Republicans co-signed: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37954 Here is the same paper at my website:http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/why-the-balanced-budg...
Here is the earlier paper which addressed why Jim DeMint's previous concept for the BBA was such a terrible idea: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33670
And here is an excellent earlier paper by our own Mike Foil which goes into the financial aspects of the BBA: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33139
In this article, Mike Foil illustrates the size of our national debt! It is mind boggling: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37687
Here is Mike Foil's article published July 17, 2011:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38556
Here is Morry Markovitz' paper about cutting spending by means of Congress' returning to its enumerated powers: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38893
And here is an excellent post with a link to the House version of the BBA which Michele Bachmann signed:
So Michele Bachmann has joined the long list of Republicans in congress who are selling us out.
READ the proposed Amendments, Folks! They are very short. Your politicians, talk show hosts, TV commentators, Faux News, & Tea Party leaders who support this are leading you astray.
Please do all you can do kill the BBA. Senate J.R. 10 transfers constitutional authority over taxing and determining expenditures to the President - the one who controls the sword. Goodbye separation of powers. This is the vehicle for a totalitarian dictatorship. And if it's ratified, it will have all been "lawful". And it does nothing to control spending!
If you have any questions whatsoever, if anything is not clear, etc., just ask!
Understanding the Constitution is not easy. Nor is it a project for those with short attention spans. It takes time and effort. However, when Life, Liberty, and Freedom are at stake, how can that effort be too much to ask or to give?
Only an abject fool would shirk that task or decline the Freedoms which the US Constitution explains for us all.
Too bad they stopped teaching it in the public school system. In my opinion, it is every American's patriotic duty to learn and understand our Constitution.
You are correct, but "too bad" is something far beyond mere understatement. It is dereliction of duty in the extreme.
They have NOT stopped teaching in school. I taught it from 2000 until 2005 from a very good textbook. The problem was/is that I had an idiot principal who decided that teachers should be able to teach anything. Since I had a Master's degree in Earth Science and had not had a history course since 1962, you can imagine how much I knew. I worked hard. Bought the Federalist Papers, consulted History majors who knew what they were doing and was lucky to find other good resources.
I taught 8th grade. The biggest problem- because of Bush's "No Child Left Behind" children are pulled out of both science and history because they are not on the exit exam and the students know this. So you know how much they care. I spent more time waiting for my students to have their hearing, eyes, teeth, hair, "you name it" checked, then I did teaching them.
I had intended to "die in the saddle" but I could not take it any more and was ashamed to be a part of such a system. So, I retired two years after I could. I still miss real teaching but it is no longer allowed in our public schools.
Actually it is pretty easy. Thomas Jefferson said "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to determine what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." A good one to start with can be found here. It should cost around $30 to have a shop print it and comb bind it. You will be amazed at what you know, that just ain't so:) You will also find it supports P.H.'s conclusions as well, big surprise huh :). I have used it for several years now. Just be aware that something may be open to question. I am working up a list of all the volumes I have collected to perhaps create a library of sorts maybe if that would be acceptable. http://books.google.com/books?id=J0YLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA83&lpg=P... Peace
I think David J. Edwards was referring to the apathy & laziness & untrained minds of The People. I think David knows what's what.
I advise People to stick to the words of our Framers - primarily the Federalist Papers and, of course, Thomas Jefferson. Secondary sources written later on by others - e.g., Justice Story's commentaries - move away from the original intent. Some farther away than others.
Reading and understanding supreme court opinions takes several years to learn how to do. And the rewards are not great. In fact, great harm has been caused by those opinions. And they are very easily misunderstood. Those opinions are the vehicle by means of which Our Constitution was taken away from The People. The People can reclaim Our Constitution only via The Federalist Papers - and by insisting on the explanations set forth with the Federalist Papers as ALONE being authoritative.
That is why I, for the most part stay away from scotus cases and refer to the guides I have linked. They use very few "scotus cases" for the simple fact that the court was operating mostly correctly and adhered to State court decisions as the guides show. Scotus only became the beast is it,IMO, when Roosevelt threatened to stack the court. I do agree with you however, when I started learning to read their gibberish is was like another language.
I ascribe to the opinion of the Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 74, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
I started on the Federalist Papers, which led me this point.. I do understand your point and concur. When I began to engage lawyers, I was amazed at the distorted grasp they had on the Constitution as we are "taught" we need a lawyer, for everything.
Well, I trust that you recognize that even you have something to learn.
Anyone who claims they know it all is most assuredly a fool. We are working on the basis of what they said and not actual discourse with the writers. I am sure I will learn something. Peace