Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention and what a new Constitutional Convention Could mean

John Jay was a statesman, diplomat, first Chief Justice of the U.S. President of Continental Congress, minister to Spain, secretary of foreign affairs, and author of the Federalist Papers (with Madison and Hamilton)
Quote: New York 25 July 1787 Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Some possibilities a new Constitutional convention could produce.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

1787 Constitutional Convention:

(At the same time, the term of the President was debated; the delegates toyed with many ideas, including a seven year, non-reelectable term, a three-year reelectable term, and a term which was essentially life, or on good behavior. But there was little consensus here either.)

So the distinct possibility of writng a new Constitution with a term for a President for life is possible. This would mean a dictatorship and totally legal under the new Constitution. Remember if a new Constitutional Convention is called it will can make up its own rules including not giving the states a chance to ratify the new "Constitution". Think about this possibility!

Also the US Senate could be changed or abolished!
Also the US House could be changed or abolished.

The Supreme Court could be changed or abolished!

In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. Each state could send as many delegates as they wished but only the majority of that states delegate vote counted.

Keep in mind this was the rule in 1787. A new Constitutional Convention could make up any rule about ratifying the new document or as was said no ratification by the states as necessary for the adoption of the new document.

slaves would count as three-fifths persons.

The new Convention could make us all just count as three-fifths persons again. This would mean we would not be considered a human to vote. This is also a possibility!

Today, the Bill of Rights is one of the most recognizable parts of the U.S. Constitution; but the Framers, for the most part, felt one was not necessary.

A new Convention could modify or delete the bill of rights. This is a real possibility because as I said anything is possible with a new Constitutional Convention. habeas corpus, unlawful restraint could be modified of not included in a new Constitution.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787

By 1786, Americans recognized that the Articles of Confederation, the foundation document for the new United States adopted in 1777, had to be substantially modified. The Articles gave Congress virtually no power to regulate domestic affairs--no power to tax, no power to regulate commerce. Without coercive power, Congress had to depend on financial contributions from the states, and they often time turned down requests. Congress had neither the money to pay soldiers for their service in the Revolutionary War or to repay foreign loans granted to support the war effort. In 1786, the United States was bankrupt. Moreover, the young nation faced many other challenges and threats. States engaged in an endless war of economic discrimination against commerce from other states. Southern states battled northern states for economic advantage. The country was ill-equipped to fight a war--and other nations wondered whether treaties with the United States were worth the paper they were written on. On top of all else, Americans suffered from injured pride, as European nations dismissed the United States as "a third-rate republic."

America's creditor class had other worries. In Rhode Island (called by elites "Rogue Island"), a state legislature dominated by the debtor class passed legislation essentially forgiving all debts as it considered a measure that would redistribute property every thirteen years. The final straw for many came in western Massachusetts where angry farmers, led by Daniel Shays, took up arms and engaged in active rebellion in an effort to gain debt relief.

Troubles with the existing Confederation of States finally convinced the Continental Congress, in February 1787, to call for a convention of delegates to meet in May in Philadelphia "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

Across the country, the cry "Liberty!" filled the air. But what liberty? Few people claim to be anti-liberty, but the word "liberty" has many meanings. Should the delegates be most concerned with protected liberty of conscience, liberty of contract (meaning, for many at the time, the right of creditors to collect debts owed under their contracts), or the liberty to hold property (debtors complained that this liberty was being taken by banks and other creditors)? Moreover, the cry for liberty could mean two very different things with respect to the slave issue--for some, the liberty to own slaves needed protection, while for others (those more able to see through black eyes), liberty meant ending the slavery.

On May 25, 1787, a week later than scheduled, delegates from the various states met in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia. Among the first orders of business was electing George Washington president of the Convention and establishing the rules--including complete secrecy concerning its deliberations--that would guide the proceedings. (Several delegates, most notably James Madison, took extensive notes, but these were not published until decades later.)

The main business of the Convention began four days later when Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented and defended a plan for new structure of government (called the "Virginia Plan") that had been chiefly drafted by fellow Virginia delegate, James Madison. The Virginia Plan called for a strong national government with both branches of the legislative branch apportioned by population. The plan gave the national government the power to legislate "in all cases in which the separate States are incompetent" and even gave a proposed national Council of Revision a veto power over state legislatures.

Delegates from smaller states, and states less sympathetic to broad federal powers, opposed many of the provisions in the Virginia Plan. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina asked whether proponents of the plan "meant to abolish the State Governments altogether." On June 14, a competing plan, called the "New Jersey Plan," was presented by delegate William Paterson of New Jersey. The New Jersey Plan kept federal powers rather limited and created no new Congress. Instead, the plan enlarged some of the powers then held by the Continental Congress. Paterson made plain the adamant opposition of delegates from many of the smaller states to any new plan that would deprive them of equal voting power ("equal suffrage") in the legislative branch.

Over the course of the next three months, delegates worked out a series of compromises between the competing plans. New powers were granted to Congress to regulate the economy, currency, and the national defense, but provisions which would give the national government a veto power over new state laws was rejected. At the insistence of delegates from southern states, Congress was denied the power to limit the slave trade for a minimum of twenty years and slaves--although denied the vote and not recognized as citizens by those states--were allowed to be counted as 3/5 persons for the purpose of apportioning representatives and determining electoral votes. Most importantly, perhaps, delegates compromised on the thorny issue of apportioning members of Congress, an issue that had bitterly divided the larger and smaller states. Under a plan put forward by delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut ("the Connecticut Compromise"), representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population while each state would be guaranteed an equal two senators in the new Senate.

By September, the final compromises were made, the final clauses polished, and it came time to vote. In the Convention, each state--regardless of its number of delegates-- had one vote, so a state evenly split could not register a vote for adoption. In the end, thirty-nine of the fifty-five delegates supported adoption of the new Constitution, barely enough to win support from each of the twelve attending state delegations. (Rhode Island, which had opposed the Convention, sent no delegation.) Following a signing ceremony on September 17, most of the delegates repaired to the City Tavern on Second Street near Walnut where, according to George Washington, they "dined together and took cordial leave of each other."

Who were the the 55 Delegates to the Convention?

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not represent a cross-section of 1787 America. The Convention included no women, no slaves, no Native Americans or racial minorites, no laborers. As one historian noted, it was a "Convention of the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed." The delegates included some very well-known figures from American history, such as George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Other prominent Americans of the time, who might be expected to have been in Philadelphia, did not attend for various reasons. Prominent non-attendees include John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The links below offer more information on the delegates.

No diversity or political correctness. Obama says these people had flawed thinking because they did not spread the wealth around. I say Obama is but a PC,PR empty suit that is only interested in power and self interests. Compared to these Constitutional Convention members he is less that a 3/5 intelect!

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The Coming Obama Thugocracy

thugocracy: n. Rule of a country or state by a group of thugs.

POLITIAL CORRECTNESS is to genuflect to the much less intelligent and to wallow with them in the puddle of PC correctness of the Obama administration and democratic congress. Barack Obama - Master PR Pitchman
The leadership and core of the liberal progressives know what they're doing. The scary part are the hypnotized followers.

Some blacks, but not all, adore Obama and will defend anything he says or does. If they are confronted with facts that can't refute some will resort to personal insults. Today a black man said I was a redneck. I ask if it was because of my views about obama. He said no I just think you are a redneck for other reasons. I said to him, "you are a bigot". Later I thought about what he had said and realized his best effort to defend obama was calling me a redneck so I told him I didn't think we should talk about politics any more because he had to result to insults to refute the truth about obama. This is a correct way to head off racist insults that he had resorted to. I do believe if I had used a racial insult like he did I would be guilty of racism as he is. Some african American's personal esteem seems to be tied directly to Obama. I had a black preacher tell me, "Whites think we are stupid and now because Obama has been elected president this shows we are not and are equal" (This is not exact but close quote.) Several talk about past experiences with racism and how most whites are racist. To me this is racism because saying most whites are racist is exactly the definition of racism...(When you label everyone in a group with the same label and not consider them on individual merits). Some blacks are radical racists and will tell me when I explain Obama is not a natural born citizen that I hate and ask why do I hate. They use the word hate or insults when any objection is raised about Obama with whom they indentity so closely mainly because he is a black person. This is what many black people hang their hat on, the fact that they think Obama is a black person. Actually he is more arab than black only 21%. Many african Americans are taking their marching orders from other quarters such as churches that teach whites that open their mouth against Obama are automatically racist rednecks etc. (I ask, why do YOU hate and teach hate?) They say give the man a chance. This means to me shutup and don't say anything negative about Obama, even if it is possibly true or is true. Normally rational, albeit left-leaning people (a contradiction, I know). Yeah, they're for big government, soft on illegal immigration, love entitlements...but BASICALLY reachable as humans.
Their lives and emotions are totally devoted to Obama. They are deeply, physically and emotionally in love with him. To them anyone who doesn't agree that obama should be president are considered rednecks or someone who just can't understand obama in thier minds is real. To me obama is a fraud and empty suit. Fraud because he was a dual citizen at birth and is NOT a natural born US citizen. An empty suit because he is not qualified to be president when compared to others who are much more qualified and experienced. Paid corporate PR including the biased news media and the Federal reserve controlled by private bankers have ensured obama's election.

If you say anything that isn't about how much we all love him, some get hysterical, dismissive, smug, result to insults, angry...they're love sick and cannot be reached. They are passing this adoration on to their children.

This is a cult. Once in power, there could be a backlash against conservatives (and especially white conservatives)the likes of which has not been seen since the Nazis had that little soiree called Kristallnacht. Everything from random street violence to legislation ensuring conservatism will not rise again.

Conservatives need be very concerned that an Obama presidency will mean criminial prosecutions for their beliefs. Obama is a facist for the politcally correct world government movement.

Obama is the pc president. If the truth was spoken or told as it should be more people would know that he is just a thug and will be inept, (Displaying a lack of judgment, sense, or reason; foolish: an inept remark.Bungling or clumsy; incompetent) as a president. There is no hope or change with Obama. Only pc and socialism. People who are in positions of authority who are not qualified allways fail at there job, if the person who was put in authority because of pc correctness, affirmative action, intimnadation, or pr compaign.

Barack Hussein Obama is a message machine, packaged and sanitized for public consumption by Barack Obama well-paid political marketers and PR counselors, fueled by huge donations. The key phrase to note is , NOT QUALIFIED. Just because you get the job doesn't mean you are qualified for the job! Its almost like the pr compaign was affirmative action to place Obama in a postion of authority. If Obama is qualifed he will be able to govern with success. People say give him a chance. Thats saying lets see what he can do. We have seen what he can do. I am not impressed with his voting present the majority of the time when he was a state senator and I am not impressed he was only in the US Senate 2 years before running for president. Also being a community organizer is not a qualification for president. I see very little qualifications for Obama to be president or succeed as president for these reasons. He will succeed in trying to change the US Constitution and socialize America. American has elected a THUG.

Here is a copied comment from a student in college. It reveals how political correctness ie the race card etc is the norm in colleges and is becomming the norm in US society.

Posted by: Lede Agenda at October 12, 2008 4:18 PM

It's hard to be a conservative academician. Even if not morally degenerate enough to embrace liberalism in any event, it is adaptive for one to eventually become mindlessly liberal in an academic setting.

Supression of free speech has become extremely repressive for the average instructor. There are a myriad of pitfalls: Women and minority students especially are on a hair trigger looking for bias. Your sense of humour must be checked for neutrality in all things. Your donations to United Way and certain University sponsored programs are tracked. You are careful to subordinate any sign of authority when communicating directly with a student about poor performance (and its best done in the presence of other faculty). You are at all times, a "good citizen." Although some pathogenic Ayers-like putrescence get caught infecting students with their liberal edicts, more generally it is an understood courtesy to avoid all discussion of politics (in fact, politics is on a par with smoking in terms of social acceptance). Watch your grading curves that they are not too low on average bc the students will and do complain, and you will be called to the carpet for your rigour. Above all, at least until fully tenured, don't insult anything, anyone or any profession - there could be hidden consequences.

To survive in academics, you either intentionally or subconsciously goosestep to the political rhythm or out the door you go. I think that this in some small part may explain why otherwise intelligent individuals inevitably genuflect to the much less intelligent, to finally wallow with them in an overall puddle of PC filth.

This is what America will be doing after Jan 20,2009 Obama's administration and the democratic congress will make sure Americans goosestep to his socialist agenda or out the door we will go. The above comment by a college student explains it perfectly. "Intelligent individuals will, genuflect, 1."To bend the knee or touch one knee to the floor or ground, as in worship", 2. "To be servilely respectful or deferential; grovel" (POLITIAL CORRECTNESS), to the much less intelligent, to finally wallow with them in an overall puddle of PC filth.

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors,” Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. “I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.” Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people’s faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

Today’s liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that used to pride themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

Floating to the top of the Cess Pool of Chicago politics is Barack Hussein Obama. Floating Obama to the top was David Axelrod the Obama campaign's chief strategist a master of "Astroturfing" who has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

The Supreme Court will not hear an air tight case against obama

This is what Leo Donofrio has said today Dec 14, 2008 about the Supreme Court.

I beat them at their own game. And they even cheated. And I still beat them. They know it. You know it. Everybody who has any sense of truth knows it. Even if you think Obama is a nbc, just the fact that 200 years of precedent has been broken is enough to warrant the case at least being heard and an opinion being written. SCOTUS wimped out. To think, they would get involved in Bush v. Gore,on such silly grounds... and now here's a situation the Court was really created for... and they skulked away hiding behind their rabid dog. OK, the result was fixed, the fix was in. But they lost.

I'm not giving up the fight for truth, I'm just giving up on the law. There is no law. There is no Constitution. There is nothing SUPREME about that Court in DC.

My Comment to Leo on his blog.

Leo Jan 6, 2009 is an important date as you know. Congress has the power to affrim the electorial votes or deny them as you know. Lets keep hope alive as Obama has said and hope there will be just 1 US Senator and 1 US Congressman who will question Obama’s qualifications as a candidate. You know they can. It is possible a debate will take place that will reveal Obama is a dual citizen. Remember it takes 2 to tango, 1 Senator and 1 Congressman. Leo don’t give up. I know I won’t. If you give up you lose and never win. I say file another lawsuit. Retreat if necessary to fight another day but never give up Leo.

Flood Congress with telephone calls, emails, faxes and letters before Jan 6, 2009 the all important date.

You can help. Heed the call. Lead the force. Rally the troops to demand Congress question Obama’s qualifications. Please.


Leo Donofrio Blog Leo was a little off today. He thinks his lawsuit will not be heard by the Supreme Court.

It should have been. I agree it seemed a question for the court to answer. I agree with Leo at least they could have debated the question of what a natural born citizen is and question Obama as a "natural born citizen" which it seems he is not.

I agree the "fix" is in. I agree this country is about to be ruled by a dictator from the cesspool of chicago who has floated to the top. Obama is a thug.


Leo donofrio also said this today on his blog.

I haven't suffered. You really don't know me. But I thank you for the kind words. My attitude, my life... my art. None of that has changed. I LOVE life... today, yesterday, tomorrow. I love God. God loves me. My friends and family would do ANYTHING for me. I am so loved, it's not even fair to be loved as much as I am loved by those who know me. I don't even feel like I deserve it but they love me so much it hurts.

I am a mental warrior. It's not me who has suffered. It's the Constitution and the country. And I can't help but think, with every sin we've committed as a country, that God is removing his protection. The Constitution is the only thing that separates us from destruction as a nation. Look what our leaders say about the Document and look at the way SCOTUS has failed the Document.

I saw a chance to help the Constitution, put my life on hold and gave it everything I had. There was nothing the case could do for me other than preserve freedom in the US. Unlike many of you, I can move. But I don't think I have to do that just yet. The time may be coming. We have no Constitution and that will begin to show soon enough.

Very kind of you, sir. But I made a decision to accept no donations. I just sent back a $200 check today. It makes me sick seeing some of these other people begging for money and getting a ton of it. It doesn't cost that much to be a pro se litigant. If you're doing it for the country suck it up and pay through the nose. It felt good to me to pay for this out of my own pocket.


Leo Donofrio was taking this case to the Supreme Court on his own time and his own money. He is exposing the other lawyers who have requested big donations to take their cases to the Supreme Court. As he said it doesn't cost much to be a pro se litigant. (Litigant Filing Without Counsel)

The Manual for the Litigant Filing Without Counsel

I looked up the term pro se litigant. It means filing a lawsuit with out counsel, but of course Leo was his own counsel. I have found a link to study how to do this myself.


I suggest everyone who is not a lawyer reading this blog read this PRO SE HANDBOOK also that way we all can file our own lawsuits without the help of counsel. Just think of the possibilities. Someone will be able to maybe get a case to the Supreme Court Like Leo. Maybe Leo could even review a few of our cases we put togeather in his free time. :) We could discuss the merits of our cases after reading how to be our own lawyer. I’m excited about the possiblities. No! Never give up, never surrender.

Be you own counsel and file a lawsuit in Federal Court yourself A great idea. Why not? Just takes time, effort and a little money for the filing fees. Lets flood the Supreme Court with our own lawsuits. Lets flood the federal courts with lawsuits like the aclu does all the time. Lets fight our battles in the court rooms of America.

I can't wait!