RSS

Tuesday Night Radio: Constitution of States; Anti-Israel Fever; Florida Red-Light Cameras; Army Apologies; more.

31 Mar

American Independence Hour hosted by Alfred Adask; 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central time, Tuesday nights, on AmericanVoiceRadio.com and also on the KU band, free-to-air satellite link at Galaxy 19.  There’ll be call-ins at 1-855-566-3738.

 
12 Comments

Posted by on March 31, 2015 in American Independence Hour, Radio

 

Tags:

12 responses to “Tuesday Night Radio: Constitution of States; Anti-Israel Fever; Florida Red-Light Cameras; Army Apologies; more.

  1. pesky nat

    April 1, 2015 at 2:27 PM

    Without me going into detail, why, in your opinion, will a “State Court” decide in “your/my behalf” that your/my 1st Amendment Right to the “U.S. Constitution” HAS been violated, & OVERRULE your objection that you/I demand that the State Constitution Bill of Rights provision, which is worded exactly like the 1st Amendment U.S. Bill of Rights be affirmed? i.e., e.g., You/I petitioned the State Court to adjudicate that your/my, right of the people peaceably to assemble, per the State Constitution “Bill of Rights” has been violated, NOT the U.S. 1st Amendment Bill of Rights provision. WHY is this demand from you, or, me not honored but instead, the Judge rules that your 1st Amendment Right has been violated? Whatcha say? I say it’s because all State Constitutions are NOW purviewed via the “Due Process of Law” provision in the 14th Amendment. In other words, State Courts Rule that U.S Constitutionally “secured” Rights apply, & there are not any State Constitution Bill of Rights abridged/violated. What kind of “State Court” IS THIS? Seems to me it is a Quasi Federal State Court. I actually had this to occur. The Judge REFUSED to say a violation of the “State Constitution” occurred.

     
  2. Henry

    April 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM

    Do the methods established by Article V allow “this state” to vote for the ratification of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, or is only “The State” allowed to do this?

     
    • Roger

      April 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM

      Good question, Henry.

      I’m not sure “vote” is the technically correct term for what three-fourths of the states must do. But, whatever it’s called, the approval of three-fourths of the states is necessary in order to make a proposed amendment part of the Constitution.

      So yeah, according to Article V, can this necessary approval be from three-fourths of those things we’re calling “this state”, or must it be from three-fourths of “The States”?

      Uh huh.

       
  3. Adask

    April 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM

    I can’t see how that’s possible. Article V refers twice to the “several States”—that should mean the States of the Union. The only kinds of “States” that we had at the time were the States of the Union (States of The United States of America). An effective legal challenge to the “standing” of any representatives of “this state” to participate in a Convention of the States (of the Union) might stop the entire process.

     
    • Roger

      April 1, 2015 at 7:09 PM

      Doesn’t that imply there hasn’t been an Article V amendment to the Constitution since “The States” stopped functioning?

       
  4. Adask

    April 1, 2015 at 7:21 PM

    That’s probably true. The question is When did were the States of the Union (States of The United States of America) fully supplanted by “this state” (states of the United States). Although the answer is unclear, I don’t think it happened before A.D. 1933 and the New Deal. I don’t think it happened later than A.D. 1968 when silver money was removed from domestic circulation and rendered “The States” (of the Union) insolvent and unable to function financially. It might’ve happened in A.D. 1948 when I suspect that the “states” of the United States (“this state”) MAY have been created at 28 USC 81-131.

     
  5. palani

    April 2, 2015 at 8:54 AM

    Concerning a constitutional convention and representatives exceeding their authority … Hobbes says it best in Leviathan … written many centuries ago

    Covenants By Authority, Bind The Author
    From hence it followeth, that when the Actor maketh a Covenant by Authority, he bindeth thereby the Author, no lesse than if he had made it himselfe; and no lesse subjecteth him to all the consequences of the same. And therfore all that hath been said formerly, (Chap. 14) of the nature of Covenants between man and man in their naturall capacity, is true also when they are made by their Actors, Representers, or Procurators, that have authority from them, so far-forth as is in their Commission, but no farther.

    And therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or Representer, not knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill. For no man is obliged by a Covenant, whereof he is not Author; nor consequently by a Covenant made against, or beside the Authority he gave.

     
    • pesky nat

      April 2, 2015 at 9:24 PM

      palani,
      @ And therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or Representer, not knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill. For no man is obliged by a Covenant, whereof he is not Author; nor consequently by a Covenant made against, or beside the Authority he gave.

      Not for you, but let most people say that to an “emergency stopper hi way Bandit Peace Officer” or any “Municipal agents” & see what good it does. Then again, maybe saying it in 16th Century English, this might be the key to it being honored. Who knoweth. But, it might be understood as to what it meaneth. Further, I sayest not.

       
      • pesky nat

        April 2, 2015 at 11:43 PM

        Accuse me palani. I meaneth, I sayeth naught. < This is what I meant to say. i sorry.

         
      • palani

        April 3, 2015 at 6:38 AM

        @pesky nat “say that to an “emergency stopper hi way Bandit Peace Officer” or any “Municipal agents” & see what good it does”

        As you get better at recognizing planes you will recognize that anyone carrying a badge, gun and uniform is operating in such a plane with an entirely different set of rules and this subject has no obligation or duty to understand principles of law. In this plane all things good involve donuts and a paycheck and all other things are bad and subject to seizure. When you begin to understand these concepts you will learn to not attempt the impossible; i.e., by example, trying to educate them that donuts are bad as are paychecks and everything else is good.

         
  6. pesky nat

    April 7, 2015 at 2:37 AM

    Deareth palani.
    I thanketh thou mucheth. I knoweth not how to answereth

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s