America's Conservative Voice

03/02/2021

Welcome to America of the third Millennia. The left must make us as divided as they can to be successful in their plan to take down the Republic.
Biden Showing He Does Not Need Congress Or American Citizens Opinions To Enact BLM's Will

White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond told Axios on Sunday: “We don’t want to wait on a study. We’re going to

02/18/2020

I have put off writing my understanding of the tenth way too long. I am going to begin with some history of the entire Bill of Rights. When the idea was first proposed at the constitutional convention it was rejected by a 10-o vote. In fact Hamilton wrote it "would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do?”
But there were some problems. Some of the states would not ratify without a bill of rights, especially key states like Virginia and Massachusettes. A number of states ratified only with the expressed understanding the document would quickly have a Bill of Rights added to it.
The first Congress accordingly proposed twelve Amendments, the last ten of which were ratified in 1791 and now stand as the Bill of Rights.
The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.
That makes it the single most violated part of the constitution and yes, I include the second in that assessment. The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment.
Notice the "enumerated powers". That part of part of that statement. It is important. More tomorrow, and it WILL be tomorrow. :)

12/27/2019

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. The 11th Amendment changed a portion of Article III, Section 2

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

This amendment has caused its own share of confusion and disagreement within the judicial system and still is a matter of considerable confusion among the citizens.
The Eleventh was intended to rectify a debate among the founders themselves about who can sue the various branches of government.
The Eleventh Amendment’s text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law. During the debates over whether to ratify the Constitution, controversy arose over one provision of Article III that allowed federal courts to hear disputes “between” a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state. Anti-Federalists (who generally opposed the Constitution) feared that this provision would allow individuals to sue states in federal court. Several prominent Federalists (who generally favored the Constitution) assured their critics that Article III would not be interpreted to permit a state to be sued without its consent. However, some other Federalists accepted that Article III permitted suits against states, arguing that it would be just for federal courts to hold states accountable.

Soon after ratification, individuals relied on this Clause in Article III to sue several states in the Supreme Court. One of these suits was Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), in which a citizen of South Carolina (Chisholm) sued Georgia for unpaid debts it incurred during the War of Independence. Georgia claimed that federal courts were not allowed to hear suits against states, and refused to appear before the Supreme Court. In 1793, the Supreme Court ruled, by a four-to-one vote, that Chisholm’s suit against Georgia could proceed in federal court. The Court relied in part on the text of Article III, explaining that “between” encompasses suits “by” and “against” a state.

Several other suits against other states were pending at the time Chisholm was decided in 1793, including Vassall v. Massachusetts, in which a British subject (William Vassall) sued Massachusetts for violating the Treaty of Peace by confiscating his property. Alarmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm, Senator Caleb Strong, of Massachusetts, quickly proposed an amendment that ultimately became the Eleventh Amendment. As ratified, the Amendment provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Following its ratification, pending suits against states were generally dismissed.
My sincerest apologies for the length of time it took me to get to this one.
Next, we will take on the Bill of Rights beginning with number ten.

12/02/2019

Tomorrow I will take a look at the eleventh.

12/02/2019

According to what I have read in various Federalist papers, the electoral college was part and parcel of the effort to ensure that we have a Republic. No matter how hard the left pushes the rhetoric of 'democracy;, that idea was thoroughly examined and rejected as being too unstable for any country of any size. This amendment is only one of the ways that they sought to ensure the Republic.

12/01/2019

The Twelfth Amendment.

The twelfth made a change to the constitution having to do with the electoral college.
Article II section one third clause states: "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
(Note: This procedure was changed by the 12th Amendment in 1804.)"
Under the original rules of the Constitution, each member of the Electoral College cast two electoral votes, with no distinction made between electoral votes for president and electoral votes for vice president. The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes—provided that number equaled a majority of the electors—was elected president, while the presidential candidate receiving the second-most votes was elected vice president. In cases where no individual won a vote from a majority of the electors, as well in cases where multiple individuals won a majority but tied each other for the most votes, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to select the president. In cases where multiple candidates tied for the second-most votes, the Senate would hold a contingent election to select the vice president. The first four presidential elections were conducted under these rules.

The experiences of the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections spurred legislators to amend the presidential election process, requiring each member of the Electoral College to cast one electoral vote for president and one electoral vote for vice president. Under the new rules, a contingent election is still held by the House of Representatives if no candidate wins a presidential electoral vote from a majority of the electors, but there is no longer any possibility of multiple candidates winning presidential electoral votes from a majority of electors. The Twelfth Amendment also lowered the number of candidates eligible to be selected by the House in a presidential contingent election from five to three, established that the Senate would hold a contingent election for vice president if no candidate won a majority of the vice presidential electoral vote, and provided that no individual constitutionally ineligible to the office of president would be eligible to serve as vice president.
More tomorrow on this and the philosophy behind the elcectoral college in general.

12/01/2019

IT IS TIME TO TAKE ON THE 12TH AMENDMENT.
This particular amendment is in the news quite a bit the last three years and we will try to explain that as we dig into the amendment and its meaning.
See you tomorrow.

11/12/2019

It is time for me to get back to the 14th. Sorry for the delay on this. Life got in the way as it has a habit of doing sometimes.
Section three of the 14th states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Although the verbiage is convoluted the meaning is simple- if you have been convicted of being a traitor you cannot hold elected office in either state or federal government or in the military; however, Congress can change this on an individual basis. It only takes 2/3 of the members of the House and the Senate to agree to do it. That is one tall order.
Again I call your attention to the fact that this is an amendment intended by its authors as referring to that period of time immediately following the Civil War. This part was to prevent people such as Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, and Robert E. Lee from holding office in either the federal or their own state govenment.

11/04/2019

More comments on the 14th Amendment.
We know from comments made by the people who proposed this amendment in congress, that it was intended for a select group of people; however, the wording has led to a thing called 'birthright citizenship.' In light of the recent legal arguments against this idea I consulted a couple of constitutional scholars much better educated than I. Their take on it is that if SCOTUS considers the intent of the writers of this amendment, that "birthright' does not exist.

That said, let's look at section two.
Section two seems to take off in a different direction. Here is the wording in Section Two: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Note that the sentence involving people eligible to be counted in the determining of the number of delegates to the House. In the previous section, this amendment is considering citizenship. Is this supposed to carry over to this section? The presumption by some says that it does not. They believe that if you reside in a particular state, you must be counted to determine the number of representatives required. California, New York, Maryland, and Texas are prime examples of this. Others believe that the two are definitely connected and that you must be a citizen to be counted for representation. It does refer to the 'Citizens' of that state.
Notice also the statement that if you are convicted of a crime, you cannot vote. That is with the exception of those that have a full pardon, which states that basically no crime has been committed.
This one has been complicated so I hope that it has been a clear statement that you can follow whether you disagree with the conclusions reached or not. Comment and thought would be greatly appreciated.

10/31/2019

More on the Fourteenth amendment

The 14th is problematical in many ways. One of the first is right at the beginning. The first section of the amendment reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The problem is derived from the definition of that word "jurisdiction". According to a strict legal definition, it means any area or person that is subject to the laws of either the state or federal government.
Many stop reading right there because anyone on our soil, with the exception of diplomats and their staff, are subject to our laws. Just as you would be if you traveled to any other country and be subject to their code of criminal conduct.
They conveniently ignore the fact that Illegal aliens are also under the jurisdiction of their country of origin. We do NOT have sole jurisdiction over them as we did the slaves and native Americans. In the latter case, our claimed land often surrounded them and we often forced them to relocate to a land they did not choose. The slaves were addressed in the 13th amendment by granting them the status of a fractional human being. This amendment was intended to address that and make them full persons and citizens.

10/29/2019

I have shied away from defining and describing the 14th amendment because it is the most litigated of them all. I have decided to make the attempt. I skipped talking about it and went from the 15th right to the 13th. Sorry about that, but I really needed to research it and look at the writing of people more knowledgable than me. I would appreciate any comments as I go along it will take more than one post, I am sure. One thing to keep in mind here is the fact that this was intended and specifically written as a "Reconstruction Amendmendment' and intended to give both freed slaves and Native Americans the rights of citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a five section amendment and one of the longer ones.

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those last five words are today being argued before the Supreme Court to determine whether they constitute a blanket citizenship to anybody born on American soil.
In all, the amendment comprises five sections, four of which began in 1866 as separate proposals that stalled in legislative process and were later amalgamated, along with a fifth enforcement section, into a single amendment. Enough for today, think about this part and I will be back soon with more.