Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Sunday, May 28, 2017
May 23, 2017
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor FFOA News Network
Article V & the Convention of States
Article V of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
As far as we can determine there are two ways to amend the Constitution:
Way 1 – Two thirds of both houses of Congress must agree to an amendment and then three fourths of the state legislatures must approve the amendment.
Way 2 – Two thirds of the state legislatures may call for a Constitutional Convention (Convention of States) to propose amendments, which then must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures.
There are five problems with this Article, three minor and two major. Let us deal with the minor ones first:
Minor problem 1: Way 2 may well never happen. By the time everyone quits arguing about the specifics of a Constitutional Convention it will be a long time before it can proceed. We had a Constitutional Convention initially because we needed a Constitution but we have never had one since and likely never will.
Minor Problem 2: How state legislatures approve amendments is not subject to judicial review. Probably, in most cases, there is nothing wrong here. If a state has a say three quarter requirement to approve this is probably excessive. The Article needed to be more specific in this regard.
Minor Problem 3: The Article does not confer any emergency powers so that an amendment may be adopted until acted upon by the states. This action could be necessary under certain conditions.
Major Problem 1: The 3/4 rule is too stringent.
Major Problem 2: The Article, as written, gives the states the power to stall. Like college basketball, the states need a shot clock. Often the Congress, in proposing an Amendment, gives the states a time limit. The Congress has no constitutional authority to do this and the states are free to ignore the time limit, which they often do. The Founding Fathers did not include a time limit because people in that time were generally honorable and when presented with a question would act upon it. The framers of the Constitution did not foresee all the weasels that are presently elected to state and national offices that are afraid to stand up and be counted on an issue because they may offend some group of voters.
Why is this so important? Presently it is almost impossible to amend the Constitution. This gives the government another excuse for ignoring it. We see what has happened over the last 85 years when Congress and the President ignore the Constitution and the courts allow this to take place – a legal impetus to the rise of socialism.
The Convention of States is an effort by a group of concerned citizens to call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. While the U.S. Freedom Army supports and applauds their efforts we feel that the task is quite daunting and the required 34 states needed to call for such a convention will be extremely difficult to attain. Having said all of that we hope they succeed.
If they do succeed they should concentrate on Article V only and not make any other constitutional changes. Without going into a lot of detail the items we noted above should be addressed and the 3/4 requirement should be changed to 2/3. It should be constructed so that 2/3 of the state legislatures can amend the Constitution unilaterally. Without going into a lot of detail about the nuts and bolts of how this should be done, this is necessary as a check on the overreach of the federal government.
This new Amendment would look something like this:
Section 1. Article V. of the Constitution of the United States of America is repealed.
Section 2. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution. The Legislatures of two thirds of the several states must ratify those Amendments for them to become law.
Section 3. Any State may propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when approved by 2/3 of its legislators. These Amendments shall be valid as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states. Individual states will have one year to ratify or refuse to ratify Amendments as proposed to them. Failure to act one year from the date of submission will mean that the state has approved the Amendment.
Section 4. Any Amendment may be enacted immediately and be in force until the ratification process is complete if the President of the United States and at least seven members of the United States Supreme Court agree to the Amendment as proposed. No Amendment under this section may nullify the powers of the states listed in this Amendment.
Section 5. The Legislatures of the individual states must only be in the majority to ratify Amendments. Other than this requirement, individual states may select any other reasonable processes for ratification.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Monday, May 22, 2017
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Friday, May 19, 2017
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Saturday, May 13, 2017
May 13, 2017
Some comments on gold.
An ideal currency “should be absolutely invariable in value.” Precious metals are not perfect but they are “the best with which we are acquainted.” David Ricardo
Gold fits almost perfectly all the criteria required for an item to be used as money. It is instructive to give a list of the requirements for an item to be a good candidate to be used as money:
Durability – It must be able to stand the wear and tear to which money is subjected without degrading over time.
Portability – It must have a high amount of worth relative to its size. In April 2017, a one ounce American Gold Eagle carried in one’s pocket is about the size of a silver dollar and is worth about $1,250.
Divisibility and consistency – It must be able to be broken into smaller parts and still retain the same value. A ¼ ounce gold coin is exactly one-fourth of the value of a one ounce coin. A diamond, for example, when split into four parts will not retain the same value as the original stone. The purity and weight of gold can be precisely measured.
Intrinsic value – It must have some worth in and of itself. Gold is used in various ways and has a value above and beyond its value as money.
Scarcity – The world stocks of gold have consistently risen about 1.5% per year on average with very little fluctuation, giving it an edge over silver in this respect. Silver stocks have shown a somewhat greater tendency to fluctuate.
Difficulty of counterfeiting – Since gold is a basic item, number 79 on the periodic table, it has yet to be duplicated by any technique known to man. Also, its authenticity can be easily discerned through various tests.
Executive Order 6102. In one of the most blatant acts of any president, Franklin D. Roosevelt took the United States off the gold standard and forbid citizens to own gold except in small quantities. Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;” - by this act alone FDR had committed an impeachable offense and it is clear that he had no constitutional authority whatsoever to write such an order. The standard of measure for money was gold and FDR outdid himself in this brazen display. The reason given for this act was the deflation the country was suffering under. That deflation was caused by the actions of the Federal Reserve, however, not the gold standard. The real reason for this action was to begin the process of removing the last vestiges of control from the money supply so Roosevelt could have unlimited funds to increase government spending. This and subsequent monetary acts would have devastating long term effects for the integrity of the dollar.
The gold standard, while not perfect, is substantially better than using fiat money which enables central governments to spend recklessly with no restraints. This is why the Founding Fathers insisted on a currency backed up by a precious metal, namely gold or silver.
The price of gold has not moved much in the last five years. This is because people are under the illusion that there is no inflation. This illusion is fostered by the phony statistics coming from the federal government. While the inflation we are having is small (about 6 percent per year) it will begin to grow exponentially if nothing is done about the national debt and government spending.
JUST MY OPINION. My personal opinion is that gold is extremely cheap and if you are in a position to own some get it. It should make up about 20% of your net worth. Get physical gold if at all possible and find a safe way to store it. When people realize that we are having an inflation gold’s value could double or triple quickly. Gold is money but unlike paper money it retains its purchasing power.
Lewis Shupe, Founder
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Sunday, May 7, 2017
STILL NO EVIDENCE!
Saturday, May 6, 2017
May 6, 2017
Patriotism and Globalism
“The divide is no longer between the right and the left but between the patriots and the globalists.” Marine Le Pen – candidate for Premier of France.
What do the forces of socialism want? They want a world government based upon socialist principles. This is their fundamental goal and, in order to achieve that goal, they must bring down the United States of America and eliminate the U.S. Constitution since both these bulwarks of freedom stand in their way. The way they have chosen to do this is to build up the welfare state until the nation’s economy collapses, paving the way for their takeover of the instruments of government.
This strategy was first enunciated by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, the founders of Fabian Socialism. This strategy was augmented by the work of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci and by the further work of Cloward and Piven. Fabian Socialism believes in gradualism and the slow methodical approach rather than by violent overthrow. Some famous members of the Fabian Society were the economist John Maynard Keynes and the playwright George Bernard Shaw. The Fabians founded the London School of Economics.
Socialism succeeds in attracting followers because of clever marketing. It sounds good: we will all work together, we will all share, we will raise up the poor and downtrodden. The fact that socialism has a dismal past, has always failed to deliver on its promises, and always leads to a dictatorship does not seem to occur to some people until it is too late. Socialism is a little like the old-style antifreeze – it may taste sweet but if you drink it you get a bad result.
If the United States were to fall under the spell of socialism not only would the socialists have eliminated their primary opposition but they would inherit a military that would allow them to succeed on a world-wide scale. This cannot be allowed to happen. The patriots must get organized and become prepared to eliminate the globalists from public life so that freedom and the U.S. Constitution can take back America.
Lewis Shupe, Founder