I recently attended the later half of a John Locke Foundation seminar on the U.S. Constitution, I only heard Dr. Michael Sanera speak. What I heard - from the perspective of the founders intent - was absolutely correct. Dr. Sanera's explanation of the enumerated powers, of the 'General Welfare' clause, the fact that each of the states was a independent country, and even his idea of what needs to happen to take back our nation (with the exception of how far back we need to go to achieve it) - an overturning of Supreme Court Case Law.
Where Dr. Sanera, the John Locke Foundation, and myself part ways is in how to achieve this goal of restoring what has been lost, and in the origin of the problem.
The John Locke Foundation, and Dr. Sanera are of the opinion that the origin of the unconstitutionality that exists in government today is a result of the 'Progressive' movement - who's origins begin about 100 years ago. Well, they are correct that the instigator of all that ails us is progressive ideology, however, this ideology was brought to fruition by Abraham Lincoln and the Radical Republican Party of the mid-1800's.
Today, just as back then, the progressive ideology is smoothly and beautifully glazed on the outside of their agenda with valid humanitarian and environmental concepts, such as: medical attention for the poor, environmental consciousness; stewardship, free public education, the abolition of slavery, et.al... However, when we peer into this progressive cup of compassion and ministration, we find corruption; a new progressive form of slavery, servitude, and usurpation of the fundamental truths of liberty and freedom; unalienable concepts of the self-evident endowments of mankind. The Radical Republican Party, took the military defeat of the South as an opportunity to not simply abolish slavery in the United States of America, but to put down once and for all the heresy of 'state's rights' by and through the Reconstruction Acts and the coerced 14th Amendment (part of the supporting historical documentation for this can be found in the Brief pp. -36-;Appen.85-91). Dr. Senera and the John Locke Foundation do not wish to gaze upon this vital aspect of American history and jurisprudence. As of yet, I do not believe I am correctly discerning the reason for this avoidance by these reasonable, intelligent, educated, and rational men. When, I spoke with Dr. Senera after the seminar, he stated that: 1) He was unfamiliar with the Reconstruction Acts or the details of the14th Amendment, and 2) That the amount of energy needed to bring a constitutional challenge upon an act of Congress was to great, versus politically re-seating the United States Supreme Court with constitutional intent minded justices (Such as Justice Thomas and Saclia)?
The constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts has not been before the United States Supreme Court in one hundred and forty-two (142) years, and has never been ruled upon. In the case of Norton v. Shelby County, the Court stated, "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." This concept is huge, because the United States Congress is acting through a new political body that it created by an unconstitutional act.
So, the question stands, which is the more 'ergonomically feasible' course of action? To re-seat the United States Supreme Court, over the course of the next 30 years, or to seek a judicial ruling over the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, perhaps 5 to 7 years?
Another question to ponder is: Why is the John Locke Foundation not giving the people all the information? Why are they continuing to present their own revisionist history and withholding vital facts, when this bit of history has been brought to their attention?
Friends, I want my nation and my country back. I do not want my children to have to fight this battle. I do not want to see this union and its countries (States) utterly destroyed by the machinations of tyrants and evil men. Is this a nation of laws, or is justice just a fantasy of philosophical stimulation? If someone stole, through fraud, 5000 acres of land from your great-great-great-grandfather one hundred and sixty years ago, and you can prove it, do you not have a rightful claim to it; should you not seek to recover it?
If you remove the foundation, the house comes down. Pause and calmly think upon it.
Posts
Ironically enough, someone did steal just about that much land from my family, but not so long ago. Much of what is now Raven Rock State Park in Harnett County was the plantation of my great great grandfather Neill McKay. His wife Josephine gave the park its name. Of course you'll find no mention of any of this on the park website. They seem to have intentionally cut out the links to my family. I plan to try to remedy this in the near future. My great grandfather Prentiss inherited the property and my grandfather and his siblings grew up there. My grandfather's sister Lizzie and her brother Prentiss never married and remained on the property. It was still technically jointly owned by the children. Lizzie apparently forged several of the children's names to make it appear they had signed over their portion to her when they gave no such consent. My grandfather's brother Prentiss died in 1961. When my grandfather was dying in 1969, Lizzie refused to give his wife and children their share of the land since Lizzie hated my grandmother. When Lizzie herself died in 1978 the land was willed to the state. Many descendants are still angry about this. However, proving the fraud would be nearly impossible since my grandfather and all his siblings are now deceased. If it could be proven, I could rightfully lay claim to a portion of the Raven Rock property.
ReplyDelete