PDA

View Full Version : Our Justice Department, marijuana, illegal entrants and adhering to our Constitution




johnwk
01-04-2018, 01:12 PM
See Justice Department to crack down on legal marijuana with roll back of Obama policy (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-department-to-crack-down-on-legal-marijuana-with-roll-back-of-obama-policy/ar-BBHRJKI?ocid=spartandhp)


”WASHINGTON – As part of a crackdown on legal marijuana, the Justice Department is set to roll back an Obama administration policy to not challenge state laws that allow people to use pot for medical and recreational uses an official familiar with matter said Thursday.”


I don’t know what our current Justice Department has in mind with regard to cracking down on legal marijuana. But I do know our Federal government has absolutely no constitutionally authorized power to prosecute citizens within a state who may be engaged in the manufacture, sale or transportation of marijuana within their State’s borders.


How do I know this to be true? Prior to the adoption of the 18th Amendment, our federal government had no authority to enter a state and prosecute the people therein for the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors. Their hands were tied by our Constitution. After the adoption of the 18th Amendment Eliot Ness became the first federal agent, and acting under our Constitution, to enter a state and arrest those engaged in the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. With the adoption of the 18th Amendment our federal government and the several states had concurrent power to enforce prohibition and prosecute those engaged in the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.



But this power granted to our federal government was later withdrawn by the 21st Amendment in the following words:


”The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”


And thus, our federal governments’ power over intoxicating liquors within a state’s borders evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment and adoption of the 21st Amendment!


In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and regulate intoxicating liquors, as the people in each state feel is in their own states best interests was intentionally taken back, and in crystal clear language, by section two of the 21st Amendment which reads:


”The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”


So, the only federal authority over marijuana which is constitutionally based would be over the people of one state transporting it into another state without the receiving state’s consent for its sale or use.


One final note. I fully support our federal government using its constitutionally authorized powers to prosecute and severely punish all those who would dare to transport their intoxicating substances into a state for sale or distribution without that state’s permission. And when I say “severely punish”, the minimum jail time ought to be at least five years! We need to re-establish federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and strictly observe the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government. The people of the various United States need to take back their country and enforce their written constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text!


If Jeff Sessions wants to do something useful, then prosecute the Mayors of sanctuary cities and the Governor of California for harboring illegal entrants.


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858]

phill4paul
01-04-2018, 01:34 PM
But, you see, shortly after the Constitution was ratified the power of the judicial was markedly increased, to the point that they can "interpret" the Constitution in anyway they see fit. All this pot regulation is perfectly legal, and on the up and up, because 9 clowns in gowns decree that it is.

Origanalist
01-04-2018, 01:47 PM
But, you see, shortly after the Constitution was ratified the power of the judicial was markedly increased, to the point that they can "interpret" the Constitution in anyway they see fit. All this pot regulation is perfectly legal, and on the up and up, because 9 clowns in gowns decree that it is.

http://storage.proboards.com/5626168/avatar/SYPYAhhDpAzmhkVwHCbv.jpeg

CCTelander
01-04-2018, 01:58 PM
Complaining that drug prohibition, or anything else for that matter, is unconstitutional is a completely fruitless endeavor. The ink wasn't even dry on that document before those in power had begun abusing it, and it's only gotten more prevalent since. George W. Bush was merely stating reality when he called the CONstitution "just a goddamned piece of paper." We'll have full federal decriminalization via legislation LONG before any acknowledgement of the unconstitutionality of prohibition is forthcoming.

johnwk
01-04-2018, 03:45 PM
But, you see, shortly after the Constitution was ratified the power of the judicial was markedly increased, to the point that they can "interpret" the Constitution in anyway they see fit.

By what authority was the judicial power increased to allow judges and Justices to "interpret" the constitution to mean what they see fit?

If we look at our Constitution [see Article 6] it actually commands judges and Justices to support “this Constitution.” Our Constitution also recognizes and commands [see Amendment 7] an adherence to “the rules of the common law”. In fact, these two provisions outline the primary function of our Supreme Court Justices which can be summarized as follows:


1. Abide by the text of the Constitution


2. Abide by the documented “legislative intent” of the Constitution which gives context to its text.


The irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html).


The simple truth is, when questioning nominees for our Supreme Court, one of the most important questions to ask the nominee is ___which seems to never be asked is ___ “How would you determine what our Constitution means?” Of course, those who have actually studied Constitutional Construction and English Common Law ought to remember what is stated in American Jurisprudence:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


The bottom line is, judges and Justices, when taking their oath of office, are pledging to adhere to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and are forbidden to use their office of public trust to impose their personal sense of “fairness, reasonableness, or justice”.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

johnwk
01-04-2018, 05:08 PM
Complaining that drug prohibition, or anything else for that matter, is unconstitutional is a completely fruitless endeavor.


Our Washington Sewer Rats appreciate your apathy.


JWK

johnwk
01-05-2018, 12:12 PM
http://storage.proboards.com/5626168/avatar/SYPYAhhDpAzmhkVwHCbv.jpeg

That is the message our Washington swamp creatures would like us to believe, instead of believing in our Constitution and its documented legislative intent being the rule of law.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

phill4paul
01-05-2018, 08:10 PM
By what authority was the judicial power increased to allow judges and Justices to "interpret" the constitution to mean what they see fit?

If we look at our Constitution [see Article 6] it actually commands judges and Justices to support “this Constitution.” Our Constitution also recognizes and commands [see Amendment 7] an adherence to “the rules of the common law”. In fact, these two provisions outline the primary function of our Supreme Court Justices which can be summarized as follows:


1. Abide by the text of the Constitution


2. Abide by the documented “legislative intent” of the Constitution which gives context to its text.


The irrefutable fact is, one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of laws is to enforce “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent is a priority of the Court:


”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:


"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.


In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”


It should also be noted our Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution in order to enforce, see UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html).


The simple truth is, when questioning nominees for our Supreme Court, one of the most important questions to ask the nominee is ___which seems to never be asked is ___ “How would you determine what our Constitution means?” Of course, those who have actually studied Constitutional Construction and English Common Law ought to remember what is stated in American Jurisprudence:


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


The bottom line is, judges and Justices, when taking their oath of office, are pledging to adhere to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and are forbidden to use their office of public trust to impose their personal sense of “fairness, reasonableness, or justice”.


JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



Your protestation does not equal reality. "Intent" is subjective. A seemingly "perfect" document became twisted and confusing under a a judicial that declared they would be the final rule WRT the total. If #2 is correct #1 is automatically correct. Megalomaniac genius.

johnwk
01-05-2018, 08:56 PM
Your protestation does not equal reality. "Intent" is subjective. .

Protestations? Intent is subjective?


As to your belief that establishing the intent of our Constitution is subjective, that intent is found by carefully researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, and documenting the very intentions and beliefs under which the provisions of our Constitution were framed and then ratified. For example, let us track down the meaning of "general welfare" as it was understood by our framers and ratifiers.

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."



And Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, with reference to Congress' delegated powers, he refers to a “specification of particulars” [see the list beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1] which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.



Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]


Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."


Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]


For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.




JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

phill4paul
01-05-2018, 09:01 PM
Protestations? Intent is subjective?


As to your belief that establishing the intent of our Constitution is subjective, that intent is found by carefully researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, and documenting the very intentions and beliefs under which the provisions of our Constitution were framed and then ratified. For example, let us track down the meaning of "general welfare" as it was understood by our framers and ratifiers.

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."



And Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, with reference to Congress' delegated powers, he refers to a “specification of particulars” [see the list beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1] which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.



Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]


Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."


Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]


For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.




JWK




The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


Words.

Subjective.

Live in the real world.

Not papered history.

johnwk
01-05-2018, 09:06 PM
Words.

Subjective.

Live in the real world.

Not papered history.

You apparently have no concept of the rules of construction, or, you are here to troll and interfere with a productive discussion.


JWK

phill4paul
01-05-2018, 09:06 PM
Actually, it doesn't matter brother. The intent of the confederation, the UNION, was burned and scattered on the breeze when the winners re-created history after the civil war. A civil government, one limited, would have simply allowed cessation. If power weren't the point then why else get involved?

phill4paul
01-05-2018, 09:08 PM
You apparently have no concept of the rules of construction, or, you are here to troll and interfere with a productive discussion.


JWK

Yeah, well fuck you.

This is my New Years resolution.

Not you particularly. But, those like you.

johnwk
01-05-2018, 09:08 PM
Actually, it doesn't matter brother. The intent of the confederation, the UNION, was burned and scattered on the breeze when the winners re-created history after the civil war. A civil government, one limited, would have simply allowed cessation. If power weren't the point then why else get involved?

Your blathering has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.


:rolleyes:

JWK

phill4paul
01-05-2018, 09:12 PM
This year will be known as the year of "The Culling" for me.

Done wit ya.

johnwk
01-05-2018, 09:14 PM
This year will be known as the year of "The Culling" for me.

Done wit ya.


:rolleyes:

johnwk
01-05-2018, 09:16 PM
Yeah, well $#@! you.

This is my New Years resolution.

Not you particularly. But, those like you.

:rolleyes:

johnwk
01-06-2018, 01:31 PM
.


Getting back to the original post, the question must be asked, why is Jeff Sessions disregarding our Constitution and assuming a power not granted?


JWK

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.___ Tenth Amendment

CCTelander
01-06-2018, 01:40 PM
.


Getting back to the original post, the question must be asked, why is Jeff Sessions disregarding our Constitution and assuming a power not granted?


JWK

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.___ Tenth Amendment


Because he wants to and he can, mundane. With absolute impunity. What are you gonna do about it? Vote? Write a slew of SWLODs? Good luck with that.

tod evans
01-06-2018, 03:42 PM
Because he wants to and he can, mundane. With absolute impunity. What are you gonna do about it? Vote? Write a slew of SWLODs? Good luck with that.

Justice will not be found in their courts.

CCTelander
01-06-2018, 03:57 PM
Justice will not be found in their courts.


Don't I know it. I went that route through most of the decade of the 1980s. They couldn't care less about the CONstitution.

johnwk
01-06-2018, 04:22 PM
Don't I know it. I went that route through most of the decade of the 1980s. They couldn't care less about the CONstitution.

So, what are you gonna do about it? Vote? Write a slew of SWLODs?

JWK

AZJoe
01-06-2018, 04:48 PM
Getting back to the original post, the question must be asked, why is Jeff Sessions disregarding our Constitution and assuming a power not granted?

As Nancy Pelosi would say, "Are you serious?" Why single Sessions out when there are also 535 Congress critters, and an entire executive branch from the President all the way down disregarding the constitution and assuming powers not granted.

Oh the Constitution that saves us from usurpation by the federal government. It protects us from federal prohibition laws, and health insurance mandates, and the DEA and EPA and FCC and HUD and FBI, and Dept of Energy and Education and Transportation, and mandatory social security and medicare Ponzi scheme contributions, and federal gun laws, and total surveillance by NSA, and torture and renditions, and drone assassinations, psy-ops, and false flags, and involuntary experiments on unknowing American citizens, and and a national bank, and prevents the military from being used for unauthorized illegal undeclared wars, corn and sugar subsidies, and wealth redistribution, and civil forfeiture, and every other unconstitutional activity that is already institutionalized. Yes that wonderful Constitution that protects us from all these things.

"Whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

johnwk
01-06-2018, 05:18 PM
As Nancy Pelosi would say, "Are you serious?" Why single Sessions out when there are also 535 Congress critters, and an entire executive branch from the President all the way down disregarding the constitution and assuming powers not granted.



I have not singled out Jeff Sessions. I have been point to those who have been violating our constitution since the 1980s after spending hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours at the University of Maryland researching the making of our Constitution.

Unfortunately we have a Fifth Column media which has convinced the American People, our Constitution is subject to alteration by our Supreme Court and those who exercise federal power, and to hell with the clear text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

BTW, I noticed your embrace, Lysander Spooner, a socialist who hated our constitution's free enterprise system.


JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

AZJoe
01-07-2018, 12:39 PM
I have not singled out Jeff Sessions. I have been point to those who have been violating our constitution since the 1980s after spending hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours at the University of Maryland researching the making of our Constitution.

Unfortunately we have a Fifth Column media which has convinced the American People, our Constitution is subject to alteration by our Supreme Court and those who exercise federal power, and to hell with the clear text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

BTW, I noticed your embrace, Lysander Spooner, a socialist who hated our constitution's free enterprise system.


I have not singled out Jeff Sessions. I have been point to those who have been violating our constitution since the 1980s


Sure, Sessions is one of many, many violators. The violations of the Constitution go back long before the 1980s. It goes back to the 1790s. As mentioned, there are also 535 Congress critters, and an entire executive branch from the President all the way down disregarding the constitution and assuming powers not granted.

Also it is a logical fallacy to assume that quoting a person on one issue where the comment is correct, means that you embrace everything else by that person.

The claim that the libertarian Lysander Spooner was a "socialist" that "hated free enterprise" is ludicrous. Although occasionally made (usually by socialists), it is downright bizarre to the point of lunacy. Even the few and rare fools that claim Spooner was a “socialist” (mostly socialist themselves trying to force the label onto respected names) can produce no writings of Spooner advocating any form of socialist government, or even espousing virtues of voluntary socialism. Instead they offer edited snips like the fact Spooner recommends self-employment over wage labor (as does almost any free marketer) and opposes usury laws (get government out of the market) hodge-podged together in a form of contorted dishonest intellectual yoga to proclaim Spooner “envisioned” or “preferred” a socialist system. This is something expressed nowhere in any of his prolific writings. Spooner argued against any form of market intervention. In fact Spooner, in his writings, expressly and repeatedly rejected and exposed the flaws of any form of “social contract” governing system. His actual voluminous writings do advocate free markets and oppose any government intervention in the marketplace.

While it is certainly no crime to be ignorant of history, to offer go spouting such completely false and ignorant proclamations as truth is totally irresponsible.

Lysander Spooner was one of the great advocates for both free enterprise and individual freedom, and opposed any government intervention in the marketplace. Here is Spooner directly on private free market vs government enterprise:
Universal experience attests that government establishments cannot keep pace with private enterprise in matters of business (and the transmission of letters is a mere matter of business). Private enterprise has always the most active physical powers, and the most ingenious mental ones. It is constantly increasing its speed, and simplifying and cheapening its operations. But government functionaries, secure in the enjoyment of warm nests, large salaries, official honors and power, and presidential smiles–all of which they are sure of so long as they are the partisans of the President–feel few quickening impulses to labor, and are altogether too independent and dignified personages to move at the speed that commercial interests require. They take office to enjoy its honors and emoluments, not to get their living by the sweat of their brows. They are too well satisfied with their own conditions, to trouble their heads with plans for improving the accustomed modes of doing the business of their departments–too wise in their own estimation, or too jealous of their assumed superiority, to adopt the suggestions of others–too cowardly to innovate–and too selfish to part with any of their power, or reform the abuses on which they thrive. The consequence is, as we now see, that when a cumbrous, clumsy, expensive and dilatory government system is once established, it is nearly impossible to modify or materially improve it. Opening the business to rivalry and free competition, is the only way to get rid of the nuisance.


Lysander Spooner was an ardent defender of property rights.


Lysander Spooner opposed government monopoly over money. He opposes any national bank. He advocated a completely free enterprise banking system that operated autonomously and independently from any government intervention. He opposed government bestowing the “privilege” of who could open a bank and provide banking services.

Lysander Spooner argued for free competition in currency (sound familiar?). He argued any bank, business, institution or individual could mint or offer their own currency and let the free market of individuals making their own choices decides which currencies they could use. Private gold, silver, bitcoins, cryptocurrency, coupons, god/silver or other script, other commodity back currency, whatever creative minds can think up and the free market will support – it is all fair game.

Lysander Spooner opposed government licensing of professions. As an attorney her particularly government licensure over attorneys.

Lysander Spooner opposed taxation. He argued that taxation is theft:
“The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat (…) The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. [Unlike the government, the highwayman] does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit (…) In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave”
….
It was a principle of the Common Law . . . that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system . . . of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. . . .

. . . Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; . . . Taking a man’s money without his consent, is . . . as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself. . . .
. . . The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.

Lysander Spooner was one of the greatest advocates for jury nullification.

Lysander Spooner advocated ending the US postal monopoly and allowing private mail business in direct competition with the US Postal Service.

He recommended that self-employment was favorable for the individual over wage labor, something free-marketers and entrepreneurs whole heartedly recommend. Spooner explaiend that government intervention in the marketplace impeded laborers ability to progress to self-employment. Currency and credit monopoly and licensure monopoly las impeded and harmed wage laborers. Get government out. For instance:
"If a man have not capital of his own, upon which to bestow his labor, it is necessary that he be allowed to obtain it on credit. And in order that he may be able to obtain it on credit, it is necessary that he be allowed to contract for such a rate of interest as will induce a man, having surplus capital, to loan it to him; for the capitalist cannot, consistently with natural law, be compelled to loan his capital against his will. All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore, nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man’s natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor...The effect of usury laws, then, is to give a monopoly of the right of borrowing money, to those few, who can offer the most approved security".
Hard to get any more free market than that.

And of course, throughout his entire life, Lysander Spooner was one of the greatest intellectual minds for abolition of the hideous institution of slavery – theft of a person’s life. Simultaneously he also opposed the Civil War. He harshly condemned the union for the “horrible, unnecessary” war, arguing the states should be permitted to secede.

On Lysander Spooner (http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/03/11/mondays-with-murray-rothbard-on-lysander-spooner/)

More Spooner Info (https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=lysander+spooner)

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10417668_946504355366661_8919383705299372311_n.jpg ?oh=aee84a3e2110801a1bed735f9be2b605&oe=5AF9C98E https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10624606_1028610157156080_7166972552713113207_n.pn g?oh=dac834cc9fbcc947aebe2a411a6f8503&oe=5AED97BA

Let’s Abolish Government (http://store.mises.org/Lets-Abolish-Government-P473.aspx) by Lysander Spooner

No Treason (https://economicsandliberty.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/b733b-notreason-n6.pdf): the Constitution of No Authority

Collection of Spooner Works (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/works)

johnwk
01-07-2018, 01:13 PM
Sure, . . . snipped for brevity . . .


:rolleyes:


JWK

CCTelander
01-07-2018, 02:50 PM
:rolleyes:


JWK


:rolleyes:

Origanalist
01-07-2018, 03:05 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

CCTelander
01-07-2018, 03:18 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Just couldn't resist, could you? :D