“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
There are Important Notificationsfrom our host, Wolf Moon; the Rulesof our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveatsfrom Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles video and such.
…The Times framed Trump’s historic first 100 days darkly, as a warning or a sinister omen, but was finally forced to admit that either way, the nation has never witnessed any presidency like this. For instance, one sub-headline blared, “The United States has never seen an effort to expand presidential authority at the scale of Donald J. Trump’s second term.”
[And we had not seen a greater effort to EXPAND the unaccountable bureaucracy, then under FDR.😡 POTUS Trump is trying to return us to the original Constitutional design of the executive.-GC]
“They are trying to do a moonshot on executive power,” explained Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith. Jack doesn’t share Trump voters’ excitement. He feels threatened: “this situation is a much more dangerous threat to the rule of law than the last time.” I’ll just point out that, over the last four years, Jack never thought Biden’s lockdowns, mandatory drugs, or vaccine passports for accessing air travel were threats to the rule of law….
Given our out of control judiciary, I thought this would be a good time to look at what has happened to our judicial system over time. I am hoping Pgroup2 chimes in because I am NOT a lawyer and don’t play one on TV.
Let’s start with what our Constitution says about the Judiciary.
Article I
Section 2.
…No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.…
Section 3.
….No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen….
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power…
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court…
I included Section 2 & 3 because it gives the minimum age and the minimum years as a citizen before the founders considered a person eligible to serve the US people. Shouldn’t judges who serve for a life time be required to have similar qualifications? Maybe 30 years of age and 10 years a US citizen? OR better yet, like our president a natural born US citizen?
Article II
Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy …. and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, 👉or in the heads of departments.👈
That last part will come back to bite us in the rump!
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
This article looks at the judiciary from the point of view of the federal government.
….The provision for tenure during good behavior and a prohibition on reductions in salary assured the judges of the Supreme Court and other judges authorized to exercise the judicial power of the United States an independence that the Constitution denied the legislators and president. 🤔 The constitutional outline of the judiciary, far briefer than the articles defining the legislative and executive branches, offered a general description of the federal courts’ jurisdiction. Article III was more specific in its protection of several rights and liberties, such as 👉the guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases👈 and freedom from bills of attainder or vague charges of treason.
Other articles of the Constitution also shaped the structure and operation of the federal judiciary. According to Article II, the president would appoint judges with the approval of the Senate. In Article I, the enumerated powers of the Congress included the authority “to constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.” Although Article III made no mention of a chief justice, the provision in Article I for the chief justice to preside in the impeachment trial of a president indicated the delegates’ assumption that the Supreme Court would include one leadership position. Article VI required all judges, like state and federal legislators and executives, to be bound by oath to support the Constitution.
The constitutional provisions for the judiciary reflected the conventions’ debate on the appointment of judges, the institutional independence of the third branch, and the value of lower federal courts. Many delegates assumed Congress would elect judges, while other wanted the president alone to select the members of the Supreme Court. Madison’s original proposal for the Constitution called for the president and members of the Supreme Court to serve on a Council of Revision that would have authority to veto legislation. The most contentious, and finally unresolved, debate concerning the judiciary centered on the proposals for lower federal courts that would operate alongside existing state courts. Supporters of a strong national government wanted a system of lower federal courts with final jurisdiction in many cases, while those who wished to preserve the authority of state governments proposed that the state courts exercise federal jurisdiction on a local level. 👉The debates on the ratification of the Constitution further demonstrated how controversial were the proposals for lower courts👈 and made clear the challenge Congress would face in establishing a national judiciary within a federal system.
The Supreme Court has no power to amend our Constitution. And it’s impossible for an amendment to take away powers our Constitution doesn’t grant.
Joanna Martin, J.D.
1. First Principles
Let’s analyze COSP’s silly argument. We begin by looking at First Principles:
♦The Judicial Branch was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution. Accordingly, it is a “creature” of the Constitution. 1
♦The federal government came into existence when the States, acting through special ratifying conventions held in each of the States, ratified the Constitution.2
Since the Judicial Branch is merely a “creature” of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution; 3 and as a mere “creature” of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence! 4
2. Supreme Court Opinions are not “the Law of the Land”
Article VI, cl.2, US Constit., the “supremacy clause”, defines “supreme Law of the Land” as the Constitution, and acts of Congress and Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution. Supreme Court opinions aren’t included!
Furthermore, Art. I, §1, US Constit., vests all law-making powers granted by the Constitution in Congress. Our Constitution doesn’t grant any lawmaking powers to the Judicial Branch.
So why does everybody say, as we heard during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings, that Roe v. Wade is “the Law of the Land”? Because Americans have been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is superior to our Constitution; that their opinions about our Constitution are “law”, and we are bound by them unless and until they issue new opinions which release us from their previous opinions.
3. Organic & statutory law and the totally different “common law” precedent followed in courts
Americans have been conditioned to ignore the huge distinctions between organic and statutory law, on the one hand; and the common law which is embodied in the precedents followed by judges in litigation…..
There is a lot more and it is well worth reading. Other Publius Huldah articles on the due process clause.
…..
REGULATIONS
Well, Well, Well the Federal Register says this page is ‘NOT FOUND’ No wonder I could not find it when I went looking a few weeks ago. However I had it in my notes and it was archived.
The idea for a centralized publication system for executive branch documents began during the Great Depression, when Congress began enacting a host of legislation that gave executive branch agencies 👉increased authority to regulate.👈
With this flood of new regulations, [Thanks FDR – GC] it soon became apparent that, because there was no standardized repository, it was difficult for the public and federal agencies to know which regulations were effective and enforceable.
This situation was dramatically highlighted when the Supreme Court decided a case involving an agency that tried to enforce a regulation that had actually been revoked by an executive order. No one—not the government, not the defendants, not the lower courts—was aware that the regulation had been eliminated.1 In response, Congress enacted the Federal Register Act (FRA) in July of 1935. The FRA created the Federal Register as the official daily publication for presidential documents and executive agency rule and notice documents and established a central location for filing documents for public inspection.
The documents that the Federal Register Act requires agencies to publish in the Federal Register include:
* executive orders and proclamations;
* documents of general applicability and legal effect;
* documents that impose a penalty;
* any other documents that Congress requires.
The act also requires that these documents are made available for public inspection at least one day before they are published in the Federal Register….. [GEE a WHOLE DAY!🙄]
Proposed Rules
This third section contains documents that announce possible changes to the CFR and solicit public comment on the proposal, such as notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preliminary rulemaking documents, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking and petitions for rulemaking…..
If you break a regulation you are not tried within the normal court system. Instead you are tried by a ‘judge’ WITHIN THE FEDERAL BUREAU THAT MADE THAT REGULATION. 😩
Administrative law judges (ALJ) (not administrative judges) are executive judges for official and unofficial hearings of administrative disputes in the Federal government. Because they only hear administrative law issues as designated in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), administrative law judges are considered part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and 👉ALJs are appointed by the heads of the executive agencies.👈 However, administrative law judges receive much of the same protections as those in the judicial branch in order to preserve their neutrality [And if you believe that 🦬💩 Schiff, I have a bridge I want to sell! –GC] such as not being subject to bonuses or ranking systems of executive agencies.
Given the broad scope of administrative law, ALJs participate in many different topics and for many different agencies such as the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and the U.S. Postal Service. The determinations of an ALJ may be appealed potentially even to a federal judicial court. However, 👉essentially every agency has its own appellate processes of review that must be followed before someone can access the federal courts, and sometimes in large agencies, the agency’s internal review process can be quite extensive.😩
ALJs do not serve the same role as administrative judges. While similar in name to ALJs, administrative judges can only participate in unofficial disputes of executive agencies which constitute the majority of administrative disputes. Only ALJs can hear official disputes heard by the agencies. Further, administrative judges are directly hired by the agencies and are subject to their employment rules and benefits, unlike the independent[YEAH RIGHT! -GC] ALJ judges.
Many states also have ALJs that serve similar roles as their Federal counterparts. The rules and nature of ALJs vary by state on levels of neutrality, procedure, and jurisdiction.
EXAMPLE:
The Food Safety Modernization Act bill was so over-the-top in its overreach that the bill’s language states, “(t)he validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review.”
And if you’re think this is as outrageous as this bill can be, you’d be very wrong. Section 406 clearly states, “(i)n any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdictionSHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”
…Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org, who is not a lawyer (she has a B.A. in advertising), claims the bill doesn’t apply to “ that tomato plant in your backyard.” As a lawyer, I am skeptical of this claim (I co-represented the prevailing defendant in the last successful constitutional challenge to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause, United States v. Morrison(2000), one of only two cases in 70 years in which a challenge was successful). Congress’s power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause is almost unlimited in the eyes of the courts, a nd thus can reach the “tomato plant in your backyard.” — Trojan Horse Law: The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
Text from the bill HR 875 that became the Food Safety Modernization Act.
Civil Penalty-
(A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such
B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph (A) andeach day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense. [Now you know why I no longer sell my goats and sheep and rather kill & bury them than sell them for food! -GC]
Criminal Sanctions-
(1) OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 301) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
(2) OFFENSE RESULTING IN DEATH- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in death, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
(e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator–
(1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and
(2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation–
(A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law; or
(B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.
I do not know if these Criminal Sanctions are tried before the Administrator or not. With NAIS aka animal ID traceability, the large corporations LOVE this law since they can slough off any legal ramifications onto the farmer.
….However, this type of jury is called a “petit” or “trial jury”; a grand jury is very different. A grand jury is a group of citizens convened by the federal government to determine if probable cause exists to believe that a person committed a federal crime.…
👉Federal prosecutors present evidence and live testimony in a grand jury proceeding by issuing grand jury subpoenas. A grand jury subpoena is not issued by the grand jury but by the federal prosecutor assigned to the case.👈
Under the United States Constitution, all federal felony charges must proceed with a grand jury indictment. However, there is no grand jury requirement for misdemeanor offenses.
Nothing like a bit of gaslighting to confuse the public….
In dealing with the grand jury, the prosecutor must always conduct himself or herself as an officer of the court whose function is to ensure that justice is done and that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer.
The prosecutor must recognize that the grand jury is an independent body, whose functions include not only the investigation of crime and the initiation of criminal prosecutionbut also the protection of the citizenry from unfounded criminal charges.
The prosecutor’s responsibility is toADVISEthe grand jury on the law and to present evidence for its consideration.In discharging these responsibilities, the prosecutor must be scrupulously fair to all witnesses and must do nothing to inflame or otherwise improperly influence the grand jurors.…
[updated January 2020]
9-11.242 – NON-DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d) provides that the only prosecution personnel who may be present while the grand jury is in session are “attorneys for the government.” Rule 1(b) defines attorney for the government for Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure purposes as the Attorney General, an authorized assistant of the Attorney General, a United States Attorney, an authorized assistant of a United States Attorney, and certain other persons in cases arising under the laws of Guam.
An agency attorney or other non-Department of Justice attorney must be appointed as a Special Assistant or a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 515, or a Special Assistant to a United States Attorney, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 543, in order to appear before a grand jury in the district of appointment….
Note the word ADVISE and the CHANGE of DATE… From the older reading the Grand Jury is INDEPENDENT of the courts and can look into matters. This of course is NOT a concept our Overlords want us to know. It is JUST like the RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL and JURY NULLIFICATION. A right granted by the US Constitution but eroded and hidden from us.
Prepared By Kelly Mordechai, Author“The Hidden 4th Branch”
Kelly Mordechai is experienced at filing formal grand jury petitions and has appearing before a grand jury based upon a filing of his own formal grand jury petition. The process for accessing a country, state, or federal grand jury is protected by your ‘Right to Petition’ and can differ greatly from grand jury to grand jury, so knowing your rights, and the specific procedures that may be unique to the grand jury you are attempting to petition, is paramount to a successful filing. Mr. Mordechai is happy to consult with anyone interested in filing a formal grand jury petition….
Q2:What is a grand jury?
Answer: A grand jury isan independent legal authority, empowered by the U.S. Constitution, case law, and history. A grand jury is composed of everyday people entrusted to investigate any and all allegations of felonious criminal activity and inparticular “willful misconduct by public officials.”
Grand juries possess the legal authority to indict anyone believed to be guilty where evidence and testimony substantiates the allegations of criminal activity.
Once indicted, alleged criminals are required to stand trial or seek a plea bargain.
Grand juries are comprised of U.S. citizens, aged 18 or older, and selected directly from the communities they are appointed to serve.
Referred to as the unofficial 4th branch of the government, grand juries possess enormous power to pursue justice on behalf of ‘We the People’, particularly in times when corruption is evident and unchecked. With clear evidence during the COVID crisis that crimes against humanity, extensive fraud, and rampant acts of willful misconduct have been committed, grand juries present the best potential solution for Americans seeking justice. A grand jury convened to independently investigate government officials and public health officials for corruption, fraud, and willful misconduct can ensure that any and all alleged criminals stand trial for wrongdoing. [2]
Q3:Can any U.S. citizen petition a grand jury?
Answer: Yes. Every U.S. citizen retains the 1st Amendment ‘Right of Petition’. While some states have made significant effort to install obstacles that prevent ordinary U.S. citizens from actively engaging their right to petition grand juries, these rights are maintained in all 50 states, nevertheless. Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska and Oklahoma have laws that specifically empower citizen led grand juries without the need to file formal petitions through the US Attorney or State Attorney General acting as a middleman in the process…
[Page 16 thru 39 are references.]
WHYdidtheyremovedTrial by Jury AND JURY TRAINING???
“ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1788.
“Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”
John Adams, 1774.
“Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”
….Despite this extensive history, modern judges mostly forbid any mention of jury nullification in the courtroom. This has happened in part because of an obscure Supreme Court decision. In 1895, the Court ruled in Sparf v. US that juries do have the power to nullify the law. But the ruling also stated that judges are not required to inform the jury of this. As a result, judges and prosecutors have exploited Sparf to forbid any mention of jury nullification from the courtroom….
William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn’s admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail “without meat, drink, fire and tobacco” for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors’ action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts — to nullify the law if it chose — became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you’d never know it…
“Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”
The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….
The nullification principle involves the power to say no to the excesses of government, and thus serves as a final defense against tyranny.As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”….
Author, Tom Stahl is a former FIJA Board member and practicing attorney from Waterville, Washington
ALL CRIMINAL CASES
The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases.” Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states:
…In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.
…There is no doubt that jury nullification was one of the rights and powers that the people were exercising in 1791 when the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was adopted. As legal historian Lawrence Friedman has written:
In American legal theory, jury-power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the first revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh.
Jury nullification is therefore one of the “rights retained by the people” in the Ninth Amendment.
And it is one of the “powers reserved to the people” in the Tenth Amendment.
Jury nullification is decentralization of political power. It is the people’s most important veto in our constitutional system. The jury vote is the only time the people ever vote on the application of a real law in real life. All other votes are for hypotheticals.
Chief Justice Roberts shows that he’s part of the swamp. If you believe his bs about judges, I have a bridge to sell you. The Obama judge is a leftwing extremist, and the son of a lefwing extremist who was a well-known communist classmate of mine at Berkeley in the 1960s.
Unfortunately I do not have the authors of the following two quotes.However they encapsulate our present situation so well, I am including themany way.
Justice is based on how strong your connections are to the people with power and how much money you have. Without those two, justice is rarely attainable. I have spent too many years around the system to even begin to think the average person stands a chance at getting justice.
….
The whole concept of an “independent” judiciary is silly when you have activists judges making up justifications to rule on partisan ideological lines out of whole cloth. When this happens judges are effectively legislating from the bench.
IF THERE IS NO TRIAL BY JURY, THEN THE PEOPLE CAN NOT NULLIFY BAD LAWS.
Therefore removal of the right to a jury trial became a goal of the Cabal.
Right to Jury in Criminal Cases
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Right to Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved….
The 6th and 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 3 Section 2 give US citizens the right to a trial. However as Joan Biskupic, a Washington Post reporter stated:
“Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.” The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial.
Biskupic also wrote: “The American custom is that jurors decide the facts of the case (whether the person did what he is accused of) and leave it to judges to interpret the law. There is no room, in other words, for jurors to say whether they think the law is a good one, though there have been a few celebrated exceptions — notably the 18th-century acquittal of John Peter Zenger of seditious libel and the 19th-century acquittals for prosecution under the fugitive slave law.”
This is a rewriting of history, one of the privileges of a reporter who works for a paper free to do so thanks to the rights of jurors upheld in the Zenger case. — The Progressive Review 2/99
I find it interesting that some of my older references are from PROGRESSIVES. It shows just how far they have ‘progressed’ towards a communist totalitarian dictatorship in a few decades.
Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:
The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …
The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.
In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).
The result is a relentless march towards concentrating power into the hands of the ruling elites….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This comment is no longer available at either the Conservative Tree House or in the Wayback archives. I think it is important enough to preserve it here.
Judicial Tyranny has long been an enemy to our Republic.
President Thomas Jefferson knew what was coming way back in 1800, but even these great men would’ve laughed at allowing “lower courts” rule over the executive branch, and pushed back hard against the Supreme Court at times.
Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)
“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
FTA: The justices overturned a lower court ruling that had endorsed the SEC’s hiring practice for the judges. The agency’s commissioners, who are presidentially appointed, should have named them, not SEC staff, the justices said.
This ruling has real impact giving power back to the president across the board in numerous agencies. Looks like POTUS will have more seats to fill.
Here’s where case law method started:
-snip-
•In the 1870s, Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell transformed American legal education by introducing what has become the standard first-year curriculum for American law schools – including classes in contracts, property, torts, criminal law, and civil procedure.
•Langdell also developed the case method of teaching law, which became the dominant pedagogical model at U.S. law schools. His notion that law could be studied as a “science” gave university legal education a reason for being that was distinct from vocational preparation. Critics at first defended the old lecture method because it was faster and cheaper and made fewer demands on faculty and students. But advocates said the case method had a sounder theoretical basis in scientific research and the inductive method.
https://hls.harvard.edu/about/history
REPLY:
So true! Our current structure represents the bastardization of our system! The Constitution, itself, is written in the Common law. That is a quote by Antonin Scalia, by the way. The Progressives systematically sidelined common law and replaced it with Equity law, which is why we have the corrupt legal and judicial system that we have today. For a lucid and comprehensive timeline of just how they did it, see this amazing legal journal article that I found quite by accident, but which I treasure, to this day. This link goes directly to a U Penn website where you can download the article as a pdf: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3957&context=penn_law_review
Title of the article: HOW EQUITY CONQUERED COMMON LAW: THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE [94 pages – GC] This is definitely a turgid law journal article and it requires a lot of concentration for us laymen. I had to read it several times to make full sense of it. HOWEVER: You can easily see, even while skimming the article, how the Progressives used the very same arguments to attack the common law that they use, now, to attack the Constitution: “The common law is antiquated and it’s no longer relevant to our society.” ” The common law is too complex. It needs to be streamlined.” I marvel that they have gotten away with destroying institution after institution using the same hackneyed lies! Lastly, the footnotes in this article are a treasure trove of truths that basically catch the evil doers of each era red-handed, destroying the key features of our system. Among those, the common law is the most valuable, and its main institution, the common law grand jury was the most valuable tool to help keep the republic, as Franklin exhorted us to do. The common law grand jury gave the jurors absolute hegemony over the judge and the prosecutor. No request that they made–not for evidence or further investigation, or to examine evidence personally, or to hear witnesses questioned again–could be refused. The decision of the common law grand jury was final.
Partly because I read this article, I came to the conclusion that the Founders intended for the common law grand jury to be the tool that made the People the fourth branch of government. They gave the people omnipotence, via the common law grand jury, so that they could nip corruption in the bud, as it first began to form, in local arenas. This is the key to the keeping of our republic. As we Drain the Swamp, we need to keep in mind that we must also restore the apparatus by which we can prevent the corruption spreading, again. I hope you guys give sufficient credence to what I am saying, here. I see this whole concept as being of central importance.
After almost twenty-five years of battle, Congress passed the Enabling Act of 1934,1 authorizing the Supreme Court to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rules” or “Rules”).2 The 1938 Federal Rules were heralded as a phenomenal success.’ Approximately half of the states adopted almost identical rules, and procedural rules in the remainder of the states bear their influence.” For decades, most first year law students have learned about civil litigation through a Federal Rules filter.5
Now the Federal Rules and adjudication of civil disputes are under attack.’ Among the key targets are discovery abuse,7 expense and delay,” excessive judicial power and discretion,’ excessive court rulemaking,10 unpredictability, 1 litigiousness,12 an overly adversarial atmosphere,13 unequal resources of the parties, 4 lack of focus,1 5 and formal adjudication itself.”6 Case management, efforts to encourage settlements, and a breathtaking array of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms represent the current major categories of response.17 There remains speculation, however, as to what factors have contributed to the nature of current civil litigation. Suggested culprits include the explosion in substantive law, photocopying, the types and difficulty of issues brought to courts, the increase in amounts of money involved, and “the sheer number of parties.”1 ‘ Without denigrating these and other factors, this Article concentrates instead on the inherent nature of the Federal Rules and on the basic choice of procedural form made by their promulgators.
It advances two theses.
First, an historical examination of the evolution of the Federal Rules reveals that rules of equity prevailed over common law procedure.
Second, this conquest represents a major contributing factor to many of the most pressing problems in contemporary civil procedure.
That the Federal Rules and modem procedure draw heavily on equity is not news. Both the commissioners who drafted the New York Field Code in the mid-nineteenth century and the most influential proponents of procedural reform in the twentieth century, cited, drew upon, and applauded equity procedure.’ 9 Some contemporary scholars have also acknowledged the modern debt to equity procedure. For example, eleven years ago, Professor Abram Chayes noted how modem civil procedure, in public law cases, looked to equity for remedies.20 Professor Owen Fiss has eloquently expressed a recent defense to the obligation of judges, particularly federal ones, to use historic equity powers in order to breathe life into sacred constitutional rights and to permit such rights to evolve and expand as society attempts to become more humane.21
As important as scholarship like Professors Chayes’ and Fiss’s has been, however, it does not do justice to the revolutionary character of the decision inherent in the Federal Rules to make equity procedure available for all cases. Nor does it explore what the choice of equity procedure meant historically, how it evolved, and what concerns and problems flow from a procedural system driven by equity. The defense of equity power in constitutional cases designed to restructure public institutions tends to undervalue the problem of how to translate rights, constitutional or otherwise, into daily realities for the bulk of citizens. 12 Aspects of common law procedure and thought, not equity, may be required to help deliver or vindicate rights, now that equity has opened a new rights frontier.
Focusing on the historical currents that resulted in the Federal Rules will illustrate what an enormous distance was traveled, how one-sided the procedural choices became, and the problems implicit in those choices. Perhaps exploring where one came from can help clarify where one may wish to go. Part I of this Article first looks at the major components of common law and equity procedure, and then examines the domination of an equity mentality in the Federal Rules. Part II explores the American procedural experience before the twentieth century, and demonstrates how David Dudley Field and his 1848 New York Code were tied to a common law procedural outlook. Part III concentrates on Roscoe Pound (who initiated the twentieth century procedural reform effort), Thomas Shelton (who led the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Enabling Act Movement), and Charles Clark (the major draftsman of the Federal Rules). Through understanding these men and the interests they represented, one can see that we did not stumble into an equity system; people with identifiable agendas wanted it. Part IV examines how the Federal Rules advocate rejected methods that might have helped balance and control their equity procedure, why the methods of confining the system failed, and why current approaches to redress the imbalance of an equity-dominated system will also fail. It concludes with a summary of fundamental constraints rejected by the advocates of uniform federal rules of procedure. My goal is to rescue some quite profound voices from the wilderness.
I. COMMON LAW, EQUITY, AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Much of the formal litigation in England historically took place in a two-court system: “common law” or “law” courts, and “Chancery” or “equity” courts.2 ” Although they were complementary, law and equity courts each had a distinct procedural system, jurisprudence, and outlook. The development of contemporary American civil procedure cannot be understood without acknowledging these differences. The more formalized common law procedure has been so ridiculed that we tend to ignore its development to meet important needs, some of which still endure, and that many of its underlying purposes still make sense. Conversely, especially during this century, equity has been touted in ways that obscure the underlying drawbacks to its use as the procedural model.
I hope this gives everyone a taste of how the Cabal has twisted our judiciary to ‘better suit their needs’ instead of ours.
FWIW, my aunt did the research to become a Daughter of the American Revolution. My family is descended from Alexander Hamilton.
Do you think I can get reparations from Senator Burr for the murder of my ancestor at the hands of his?😆
Well, alrighty then, Gail. Since you asked the question, even if it was in somewhat in jest, let’s take a trip back in time with all of our QTree friends and see if reparations may be in order. I will first focus on Hamilton and introduce background on Burr in the links. Be reminded Alexander Hamilton was not a signer of the Declaration, however, he is universally considered a very important founding father.
Alexander Hamilton – Early Life
I will summarize the major points and events that shaped his life in this post. There are many historical accounts, books, documentaries, plays and so on that have covered his extraordinary life for those who want to know more
He was born in Charleston of Nevis in the British West Indies Leeward Islands in 1755 or 1757 – your guess is as good as the historians.
He was born out of wedlock to Rachel Lavien and James A. Hamilton. He had an older brother from the relationship, James Jr. It seems Rachel was still married to her first husband, Johann Lavien, with whom she had a son, Peter. She left her husband and son in 1750 and moved to St. Kitts Island where she met James. Rachel was half British and half Huguenot while James was a Scotsman. Later the two moved back to Rachel’s birthplace of Nevis to a seaside lot she had inherited from her father. While there Alexander and James Jr. were tutored in a private school by a Jewish headmistress and Alexander devoted himself to reading many books from the family library as well.
James Sr. learned Rachel’s first husband was planning to divorce her while charging adultery and desertion under Danish law that would lead to the additional criminal charge of bigamy, so he abandoned the family to spare that from happening. Rachel moved with her two sons to Christiansted on St. Croix and managed a small store there. In 1768 both Rachel and Alexander contracted Yellow Fever. She passed away leaving Alexander and James Jr. orphaned. Her first husband then took everything from her estate, leaving the boys nothing.
The boys were taken in by an uncle. Unfortunately, he committed suicide a year later. At this point they separated with James Jr. becoming an apprentice carpenter and Alexander being taken in by Nevis merchant, Thomas Stevens. He began work in the merchant field of import-export. He soon became a trader with business in New York and New England. He became so proficient even as a teenager that the owner would leave him in charge of the business when he went to sea.
Alexander was a prolific reader and once composed a letter to his father about the terrible effects the island experienced from a hurricane in 1772. His mentor and tutor, Rev. Henry Knox, read the letter and decided to submit it to the newspaper for publication. His highly descriptive writing style strongly impacted the right people in the community, who collected funds and sent him to the U. S. to receive an education. He started at Elizabethtown Academy and a year later was admitted into King’s College (Columbia). While there he developed an interest in patriot causes and used his writing skills to counter loyalist influence, yet, discouraged violence to accomplish change and independence. With the British occupation of New York City at the war’s start, his education at King’s came to an end.
Hamilton’s Military Career Accomplishments
Hamilton was quick to join the patriot war efforts as he and many of his classmates joined the militia and were in the Corsican unit. He was soon made an officer and led a raid with the Sons of Liberty to capture British cannons for their own use. With the captured weaponry the men became an artillery unit for the militia and was named the Hearts of Oak. He soon became Captain of a 60 man rear guard artillery unit for New York and assisted Washington in numerous battles including successful action leading to the British surrender in the Battle of Princeton.
Due to his successful service he was requested to be an aide to two Generals and declined, until George Washington contacted him to be his Aide de Camp at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He jumped at the opportunity and served four years in the chief of staff capacity. It gave him great experience corresponding with the Continental Congress, governors and other Generals. He drafted orders, dealt with diplomacy matters, worked with military intelligence and negotiated with other military officers on Washington’s behalf.
He met his future wife, Elizabeth Schuyler, in late 1779 in the winter headquarters of the military in New Jersey. She was the daughter of General Phillip and Catherine Schuyler. They married a year later at her family’s New York mansion and went on to have eight children together.
He left his role with Washington in February 1781 after a misunderstanding between the two, however, it really was a result of Washingtons consistent refusal to give him command of units in the war. The couple returned to her family’s home in New York where Hamilton continued to write letters to Washington seeking a command. Finally, in July he relented and Hamilton was assigned a total of four companies from NY and CT. Upon the Battle of Yorktown, he was given three battalions and an assigned target. He led his men in victory while only using bayonets at night to avoid attracting attention with gunfire.
Hamilton’s Public Service Career Accomplishments
After Yorktown he resigned his commission in 1782 and returned to New York City. After self study he passed the bar there in six months and soon began arguing cases before the state Supreme Court. To state that Alexander Hamilton was obviously a high functioning genius is an understatement. He was noted by his contemporaries as having the highest intellect of anybody within their midst.
He was appointed as a NY representative to the Congress of the Confederation. From his early Anti-federalist days, his mind and politics changed as he had become frustrated with the Continental Congress and the inability to obtain funds from the states to pay war debts. About this time the Newburgh Conspiracy occurred as previously discussed as well as another event with a disgruntled group of former military who marched on Philadelphia to make their points for back pay. Hamilton pushed to relocate the Congress to Princeton, NJ to avoid the confrontation and they were able to continue there without interruption.
Through the years that followed Hamilton had the following roles and involvements.
Left the Confederation Congress to restart his law practice, which primarily represented loyalists and Tories. Jumped back into the public realm with the Newburgh Conspiracy. Became a member of the NY legislature. He served on the King’s College (Columbia) Board of Trustees.
He was chosen as a delegate to the Constitution Convention where he pushed having the POTUS serve life terms as well as the Senators. He wanted electors selecting both, the POTUS having an absolute veto on legislation, SCOTUS having jurisdiction over all lawsuits, and state governors being appointed by the federal government. None of that went anywhere.
He recruited John Jay and James Madison to join him in writing the Federalist Papers in support of the proposed Constitution. He oversaw the influential publications and wrote 51 of the 85 essays in the pen name of Publius. Despite hard selling the need for the Constitution, he was unhappy with numerous negotiated provisions. However, when it came time to ratify and sign, he did so.
With the election of George Washington, the POTUS initially chose Robert Morris for the Treasurer role. Morris declined and recommended Hamilton, who accepted and was confirmed in September 1789. It was in this role that Hamilton’s genius and hard work shined. He immediately began the process of fixing public credit in a manner he had previously described to Morris back during the war in 1781; which was the primary reason Morris had recommended him to Washington. His work and process for establishing financial independence for the young nation was very impressive and successful. Many of the principles and methods are still used today. For better or worse he was successful in gaining approval for a national bank as he felt a central banking system was necessary for America to grow and be successful.
His proposals to establish a mint and coinage were accepted and eventually signed into law with the Coinage Act of 1792. With it the coins were minted in decimals instead of the 8ths that Spain used. Due to smuggling and pirating problems at sea along the coast lines he proposed an armed naval police force called the “revenue cutters” to address. This became the precursor to our current Coast Guard.
For federal tax revenues Hamilton first went after tariffs on whiskey and proposed excise taxes on other products to raise funds. This caused the Whiskey Rebellion, which was put down by Hamilton, George Washington, General Henry Lee and a large contingent of federal troops. Acceptance of tariffs and taxes was slow, but he persisted with the help of other leaders over time.
Hamilton was a tireless supporter of industrialization and promoted manufacturing as a way to diversify and grow federal revenues. He stood in contrast to Jefferson who preferred an agrarian based economy.
He wanted America neutral with Great Britain and France being at war in 1793, so he supported the Jay Treaty of 1795 that he had been instrumental in drafting. He wanted to continue trade relations with Britain to keep revenues growing in the federal treasury. Since his wife had suffered a miscarriage while he was dealing with the Whiskey Rebellion, he resigned from this cabinet position in early 1795 while leaving detailed instructions relating to handling the federal debt through public credit. Some months later he returned to his law practice.
Throughout the early to mid 1790’s Hamilton faced many accusations for his sexual exploits. Well founded or not they caused much damage to his political aspirations. He remained a Federalist throughout his public life and as such opposed the politics of Jefferson. However, as the 1800 Presidential election revealed he was willing to mix it up with anybody. At that point he was crossways with John Adams and worked against his reelection. When Jefferson and Burr tied for POTUS and Adams had lost, he felt Jefferson was the lesser of two evils and cast his lot for him over the northerner Burr, of whom he detested. Jefferson became POTUS and Burr VP. When Burr later ran for governor of NY in 1804, Hamilton openly worked against him and contributed to his loss. That directly led to the unfortunate events that follow.
The Rivalry With Aaron Burr
Rather than summarize what has been done numerous times by others, I have provided some well written biographical summaries that will take you just a few minutes with each to read. Each has a different emphasis.
However, this one is the best description of the events of the day in my opinion. It will take a bit longer to read, but is well sourced and makes sound conclusions in my opinion.
It takes two to tango with an illegal duel, even if one (Hamilton) has been set up by the other (Burr) to “defend” his honor. Both obviously knew it was against the law to do what they did. Hamilton had recently lost a son in a duel at nearly the same location as this one a few years before. It is amazing that two highly educated, intelligent, accomplished men of their stature decided to do what they did. They resorted to living out a grudge match to the death over what was best for their families and country. It revealed flaws in character of both men, not unlike all of us.
In reading at least a dozen accounts of this story, it does seem like Hamilton shot into the air. Whether that was because he was not practiced with the “hair trigger” it reportedly had or whether he did it intentionally we will never know. He had been an accomplished military soldier and leader, he knew how and what to do if he did not make a mistake. After experiencing the pain of the loss of his son in that duel a few years before, he had to know how it all could go. My gut says he refused to back away from the challenge of Burr due to pride and public image, but reconciled himself to the potential results of the event and that he would not harm Burr. One account stated that in the 30 hours he lived after being mortally wounded he sent word to his Episcopalian priest to perform his last rites. The priest initially refused due to the nature of the event that caused his injury. He later agreed after hearing Hamilton’s explanations of his thoughts and actions prior to and during the duel. The priest then performed the rites prior to his death.
It also seems that in death as well as in life, Alexander Hamilton was an enigma.
None of this rises to the level of wrongful death by Burr in my opinion without more facts. The truth is both men injured themselves unto death that awful day. One from the confrontation and gunshot wound that could have easily been avoided. The other lost a lifetime of trust and goodwill that led to a downward spiral into oblivion until he passed away. Neither was a fitting end for two patriots who had fought for our freedom and were seemingly committed to the best interests of America. Both had personal flaws that let strong opinions and political opportunism get in the way of common sense and reasonable compromise.
We are thankful for the many good things they did for America, especially Alexander Hamilton. We are sad for the turmoil that occurred prior to the ends of their lives. There is a great lesson in this for those who are placed in authority and that is to turn down the volume on discord, rancor and personal attacks against others. Fight the sin of pride. As I have posted previously, politics is dirty and a big ego can cause great harm to self and others.
The current Democrat Party and their demons of destruction would do well to pay heed. It will not end well for them either.
Please remember Wolf’s rules for our community. In general that means to be respectful to each other and to pull no shenanigans that your mom might find offensive or otherwise cause jail time. That said, free speech is honored here.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, FEAR NOT;I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. 19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Reasonable Fear.
It is the human condition to face fears in our lives that are truly reasonable fears. But, when we have done all we can to prepare and protect, we still find our power is not sufficient to remove all sources of threat.
Psalms 127
1 Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain.
2 It is vain for you to rise up early, To retire late, To eat the bread of painful labors; For He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.
May the truth of God’s provision and protection calm the fears of those who belong to him.
1 When you abide under the shadow of Shaddai, you are hidden in the strength of God Most High.*
2 He’s the hope that holds me and the stronghold to shelter me, the only God for me, and my great confidence.
3 He will rescue you from every hidden trap of the enemy, and he will protect you from false accusation and any deadly curse.
4 His massive arms are wrapped around you, protecting you. You can run under his covering of majesty and hide. His arms of faithfulness are a shield keeping you from harm.
5 You will never worry about an attack of demonic forces at night nor have to fear a spirit of darkness coming against you.
6 Don’t fear a thing! Whether by night or by day, demonic danger will not trouble you, nor will the powers of evil be launched against you.
7 Even in a time of disaster, with thousands and thousands being killed, you will remain unscathed and unharmed.
8 You will be a spectator as the wicked perish in judgment, for they will be paid back for what they have done!
9-10 When we live our lives within the shadow of God Most High, our secret hiding place, we will always be shielded from harm. How then could evil prevail against us or disease infect us?
11 God sends angels with special orders to protect you wherever you go, defending you from all harm.
12 If you walk into a trap, they’ll be there for you and keep you from stumbling.
13 You’ll even walk unharmed among the fiercest powers of darkness, trampling every one of them beneath your feet!
14 For here is what the Lord has spoken to me: “Because you loved me, delighted in me, and have been loyal to my name, I will greatly protect you.
15 I will answer your cry for help every time you pray, and you will feel my presence in your time of trouble. I will deliver you and bring you honor.
16 I will satisfy you with a full life and with all that I do for you. For you will enjoy the fullness of my salvation!”
*boxed notes, above, are from The Passion Translation footnotes.
The Guardian Angel by Von Kaulbach
Our Turn.
We can make a difference. And we must make a difference.
May God bless and guide you as you pray and take action for our nation.
God Bless America, Land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America, My home sweet home.
It is now a very appropriate time to discuss political parties since they have been doing their best to disrupt the will of We the People for many years.
In our newly formed nation during the subject period of this series, the Federalists were the first organized political party that apparently formed in 1789, although some sources hold out for as late as 1795. When one considers that Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison produced and published the Federalist papers from 1787-1788 in NY newspapers, this writer chooses to use the earlier date.
That would be the year the Constitution was ratified. That did not take long, did it?
The Federalist movement and party dominated the affairs of America during the 1790’s, then never won an election after 1801 before disappearing not long after the War of 1812. Their lasting legacy will always be the Constitution, for better or worse.
To provide some background and more of a basis for this part, please review this summary of political parties in America.
Before we go further I have a confession to make. I firmly believe as POTUS James Monroe stated, “Surely our government may go on and prosper without the existence of parties. I have always considered their existence as the curse of the country”
You will find that statement in the fourth paragraph of the linked letter below from said James Monroe to James Madison on May 12, 1822.
Preach it, James. You understood this subject well in my opinion. It would not be long (1828) before a political party rose up against the freemasons, the Anti-Masonic Party. Seems you were a freemason. Oh well. That party was absorbed into the Whigs a decade later.
However, please do not miss what Monroe said in the sentence previous to the above referenced quote. “Public opinion will react on this body, & keep it right.“
Seems that is still the key over 200 years later; transparently keeping the citizens truthfully informed while they remain engaged with their government officials and related activities. Which is why the current day Uniparty worked successfully to take over the opinion shaping in media. They were successful in keeping the masses in the dark about what the usurpers were really doing while also cultivating a general disinterest or distaste of politics and voting within the general public.
The major problem they now have, thanks to POTUS Donald J. Trump, is a very large group of Americans no longer believe a stinking word they say and are now fulfilling James Monroe’s prediction of keeping the politicians more honest (“right”). The fake media’s effect is being relegated to the sheeple with Bob Uecker’s view. In honor of the recent start to MLB’s season…
Dang, I miss that guy.
British Legacy
We cannot really blame our founders for establishing political parties. The vast majority of them and other patriots who formed our new nation came from the United Kingdom. As a result, let’s take a look at the political party history and landscape there before the nation of America was a thing. Check out #3 in the link below.
Tory and Whig parties formed beginning in the 1680 time frame. Which makes it easier to understand how and why political parties formed in America. Colonists had been conditioned to their existence as subjects of Great Britain. They had seen the Tories remain loyal to the Crown and viewed as traditionalists all of those years. The Whigs were the reformers and liberals. As a result it was a natural reaction when opposing viewpoints developed in America during and after the war to create the Federalists and Antifederalists. The supporters took sides and the first to become organized appears to be the Federalists. They were soon followed by the Democratic-Republicans (Antifederalists), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans in the 1792-95 time frame. The actual dates are disputed among many historical accounts, but are in the general time frame of late 1780’s to mid 1790’s for both parties.
Conditions On The Ground Then
As we know, political parties generally form to advance common interests. Alliances on issues of importance make it easier to advance those common interests. However, those alliances also tend to create issues to gain power and money while moving public opinion to their points of view.
That is clearly what the Federalists did. Seven of the thirteen states in the new nation of the United States of America were fine with the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists foresaw big trouble on the horizon as stated in the previous part, or, felt they could not gin up enough fear porn to hopefully move public opinion their way. At that point they did not believe they could influence the seven states sufficiently to gain the nine votes needed to produce a new, nationally governing document. The seven states were entrenched in their thinking and operation. The Federalists were obviously opposed to states’ rights exceeding federal authority and believed in a strong central government. So, they used a provision in the Articles to have state conventions to elect special delegates to amend the Articles at the Philadelphia Convention. It worked. The bottom line is they wore down their political opponents and succeeded in flipping three states to their views of terminating the Articles and replacing with the Constitution that resulted.
Who were those founding fathers who could be so formidable in support of their beliefs and persuasive in their arguments? Well, that would be political heavyweights George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and John Jay primarily; along with many others who were friends and allies. They were a formidable, respected block of patriots.
Washington said, “I do not conceive we can last long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power whick(h) will pervade the whole union in as energetic a manner as the authority of the state governments extends over the several states.” He wrote letters to the governors of all thirteen states expressing his views. His beliefs in a stronger central government weighed heavily on the leaders and the people.
To be sure there were heavyweight patriots lined up against the loss of the Articles and the provisions it contained. Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Elbridge Gerry, and William Paca among others opposed its discontinuance. Some changed their views during the negotiations or after the Constitution was ratified. Jefferson took the opposite view about the internal rebellions the Federalists feared. He felt they were good for the nation to experience occasionally to improve itself. He felt those involved in such events such as in Shays’s Rebellion should not be harshly punished as an example. As a student of the Enlightenment he believed the good of people would win out in the end. This was directly opposed by many Federalists who did not share his views. They pointed to the perceived selfish responses of state leaders in not paying federal war debts as well as rebels and insurrectionists in the general populace as evidence.
As in most things of importance in government, history indicates that both camps were probably right and wrong in their various assessments.
Conditions On the Ground Now
Fast forward to January 6, 2021. What say you, America? It is the day We the People realized fully that elections have been fake for some time. It is the day many realized the federal government had become fully corrupted and had become agents of criminal leaders.
I guess the Federalists did not foresee a day when America’s federal government and elected officials leading it would authorize its Intelligence and law enforcement agencies to plan and instigate domestic terror operations against fellow citizens to influence the views, activities and votes of the general populace. But yet, here we are still dealing with the same shiz the colonists faced when the Brits did so on behalf of the Crown and Parliament.
With the Constitution’s ratification there have proven to be precious few effective triggers for citizens and even states to pull to counter the corruption as the bad faith is exhibited. That has led to outright rebellion at times in our history, as Thomas Jefferson suggested it probably would and should. As it turned out there is a large segment of We the People who have been good and faithful citizens abiding by the laws while many elected leaders, the supporting federal bureaucracy, and judiciary have not been.
It has been an infuriating experience for many patriotic American citizens through the years who point to the Constitution and tell the tyrants of the day that their actions cannot stand per the rule of law. These have been the same We the People who are viewed as We the Peasants by their greaters. Peasants who have endured corrupted elected officials, bureaucrats, law enforcement agencies, and judiciary who turn blind eyes or even openly support the criminal activities without recourse for the lessers.
Is it any wonder that POTUS Trump frequently promotes the song, “Do You Hear the People Sing?” from Les Miserables in his events? He knows how we deplorables have been treated.
There have been clear violations of the intent of existing law in the Constitution over two centuries now. In response to it there is Monroe’s, “Public opinion will react on this body, & keep it right.“ Was the 2020 election, among other disputed elections throughout our history, supposed to be rectified through that statement? How about the related treatment of American citizens on J6 who objected to the obvious election steal and the authorities’ circumvention of keeping it right? Did we keep the federal government right? 🤣
When the interpreters, administrators and enforcers are corrupted; can there even be justice outside of divine intervention or rebellion by the peasants?
Need more evidence of federal government failure to protect in America? Per numerous government sources somewhere between ten and twenty million illegal invaders poured over our borders in four years from 2021 through 2024. Elected officials in bothpolitical parties along with federal law enforcement agencies and the judiciary did nothing to enforce the law and Constitution despite the catastrophic on-going effects it had on the nation and We the People. Instead many made the paths of these illegals smooth and easy to navigate with taxpayer money to also help them along while ignoring the needs of citizens. Many of these enemies of the state are still in seated roles of power and authority and are circumventing the laws daily despite the attempts of POTUS Trump and patriots to administer them legally.
If our government actually did operate as a republic and in accordance with the law we would not be $36+ trillion in debt, rife with corruption, and illegally ruled as subjects by evil doers and incompetents. There would be no need for DOGE.
Unlike our independence movement brothers and sisters who were not involved in political parties until after the Revolutionary War; who depended on Committees of Correspondence to make everybody aware pre-war along with newspapers and horseback delivery of letters post war; we have the capacity to know where each candidate and elected official stands or votes on every issue in real time every moment of every day. All that is truly needed is the will to do so with required transparency, improved use of existing technology, and the deemphasis of the propagandist media that provides misleading to false information.
Think about who we are today. One big convoluted mess in politics for over 200 years that led to wars, genocide, carpetbaggers, robber baron rule, corrupted institutions, and so on. Perhaps we need to consider what POTUS Monroe believed, “I have always considered their existence as the curse of the country.”
Back in the founders’ day as well as now in ours; it seems only sunlight, integrity, backbone and accountability are needed to make good things happen. Something they and we have available in state capitals in legislative houses and governors mansions located in the midst of We the People and not in the jackboot protected District of Criminals.
We will not solve this ages old problem here. It may never be. However, our thoughts and beliefs can be seen and heard to help provide sunlight. The more informed We the People are, the more impact we can have on the political process. With this in mind I say; kick azz, DOGE and POTUS Trump! We the Peasants support your efforts fully. Just let us know how we can help.
Signer time. We will only do one as his involvement is extensive, yet, rarely prominently discussed by historians and pundits except for his part in establishing one pain in the azz political procedural exercise.
Elbridge Gerry
Born in 1744 in Marlblehead, MA, Elbridge Gerry was the son of a wealthy, ship operator and merchant, Thomas Gerry and mother, Elizabeth, who was also from a wealthy merchant family. He was educated by private tutors before entering Harvard College at thirteen years of age, where he went on to earn BA and MA degrees by the age of twenty. He then joined the family merchant businesses, which was active with shipping routes into the West Indies, Spain and all along the North American coast. His father was also active in local politics as well as the militia.
Gerry aligned with other notable Massachusetts patriot leaders Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Mercy Otis Warren among others. He won election to the state assembly in 1772 and worked closely with Samuel Adams for colonist causes against Parliament. He established the Marblehead’s Committee of Correspondence, but ran into trouble with the people there when he supported small pox inoculations being done at a local hospital. This was met by violence against the supporters and hospital as the people were not sure about the transmission of the disease at that time.
He rebounded politically a couple of years later when the Boston Port Act closed it and pushed the activities to Marblehead, where Gerry was instrumental in keeping supplies flowing back to the Boston area while caring for his dying father. He was elected to the First Continental Congress, but declined due to the grief from losing his father. When the governor began making moves against the colonists, he helped store weapons and supplies in Concord, which became a target of the British military at the start of formal hostilities in the Revolutionary War. While the Siege of Boston was ongoing, he helped supply the developing Continental Army as he continued to do throughout the war. He used his business contacts in France and Spain to continue to supply weapons and supplies the entire period. Despite all of his merchant activities he chose not to overtly profit from the war and spoke out against price gouging. He desired price controls to help increase the quantity of supplies they could obtain. The Descendants site indicates he was the 11th wealthiest signer of the Declaration.
With his election to the Second Continental Congress he had the honor of approving and signing the Declaration. His support was so strong, John Adams wrote, “”If every Man here was a Gerry, the Liberties of America would be safe against the Gates of Earth and Hell.” 👍 🇺🇸
He was accused of being one of the Conway Cabal against the leadership of George Washington, but quickly brought that to an end with a rebuttal that strongly countered the accusers. In the early years post war he was against a strong central government other than having concerns over Shays’s Rebellion. He remained an opponent of political parties until around 1800. At that point he felt it necessary to align and join the Democratic-Republicans in opposition to the continuing Federalist push for a dominant central government.
In 1780 he resigned from the Congress and refused all other public service appointments and offices until 1783 when the Confederation Congress met to make improvements and reforms to that document, many of which he strongly supported. He served two years before resigning from it. It was one year later that he finally married. He wed Ann Thompson, some twenty years younger, who was the daughter of a wealthy NYC merchant. His good friend, James Monroe, was his best man in the wedding. The couple went on to have ten (some say nine) children together over the next fifteen years, which needless to say strained the health of his wife. With wealth earned pre and during the war, he sold off his merchant business and made land purchases. This included a 100 acre estate of a former royal lieutenant governor that he named Elmwood that was located in Cambridge, MA. It became his home for the remainder of his life.
He returned to public life with the Constitutional Convention, making sure to represent the interests of the states in the negotiations. However, the Shays event had an impact on his beliefs about individual citizens having the right to vote to affect government. He strongly advocated for indirect elections. He was unsuccessful in the House, however, he helped make that happen in the Senate. He was very unhappy the Constitution as proposed did not enumerate specific personal liberties and did not want the central government strengthened in its position. As an Episcopalian he fought specifically for stronger language relating to religious freedom, which did not go far enough in his opinion. As a result of it and other differences he voted against the Constitution along with George Mason and Edmund Randolph – the only three against its ratification. At this point John Adams seemed to change his opinion of Gerry and called him obstinate and focused only on small things, although they remained cordial and continued working together. 😂
When it came time for Massachusetts to take up the issue he was not chosen as a delegate due to his stance, although he was invited to attend. Even with that state’s strong Federalist involvement it still only passed by a 187 – 168 vote. This vote and the beliefs of many he knew soured him against numerous formerly friendly officials.
Per the Descendant’s site, “Overcoming his objections to the Constitution, Gerry served in the House of Representatives from 1789 to 1793. To the dismay of his anti-federalist friends, he supported the Federalist agenda, including Hamilton’s proposals to fund the War debt and establish a national bank.“
This reversal and acceptance led to Gerry being brought back into the good graces of John Adams. The following information from the Descendants site gives an interesting look at America’s position in the world at that time.
“On June 20, 1797, President John Adams sent Gerry along with Charles Pinckney and John Marshall to France, to negotiate a peace treaty with Talleyrand, Napoleon’s new foreign minister. The mission was a disaster, with the French trying to bribe the American commissioners, and came to be known as the XYZ affair with the letters representing the three chief French bribers. Finally, the Treaty of Mortefontaine was completed in 1800 and is considered a great achievement by the Adams administration in keeping the United States neutral in the expanding war between Britain and France.
In 1800, maligned by federalists who believed him partial to France, and concerned about the likelihood of Alexander Hamilton becoming General of the army, Gerry joined the moderate wing of the Republican party. He ran for Governor of Massachusetts, a strong Federalist stronghold, in the early 1800s but was unsuccessful.”
He ran again for governor as a Democratic-Republican in 1810 and was elected and reelected in 1811; only to lose in 1812 for the following that leads to the reason most folks would ever remember his name. From the Descendants site,
“He had become unpopular after supporting a redistricting bill that gained him lasting fame. By rearranging voting districts around Amesbury and Haverhill to favor the Republicans, the resulting district resembled a salamander, thus earning the famous sobriquet of a “gerrymander.”
So he was the trouble maker responsible for what is still happening today! For those who want to know more about it…
I noted in one source that even as an older man he must have had an eye for female beauty. 😂
“He paid special attention to Betsy Patterson Bonaparte, the American-born sister-in-law of Napoleon, whose revealing attire caused a stir wherever she went.” For those like me who were clueless about Ms. Bonaparte there are the links below. Lady readers may be especially interested in the second one.
Despite Gerry’s election loss for governor, he was added to the ticket of James Madison as VP. With their election and the War of 1812, his work became very contentious. However, he enjoyed the aristocratic lifestyle and DC parties despite the rancor in the Senate over which he presided. He died on his way to the Senate in 1814. His wife Ann lived until 1849, the longest surviving widow of a Declaration signer.
The following Descendants site description gives us a more personal look at the man.
“Elbridge Gerry was a small, dapper gentleman possessed of pleasant manners, but never very popular because of his aristocratic traits. He had no sense of humor, frequently changed his mind on important issues, and was suspicious of the motives of others. But he was a conscientious businessman who paid attention to detail. His patriotism and integrity could never be questioned.
While Gerry’s actions can be considered those of a maverick, they can also be viewed as those of a man of principle with independence of thought and action independent of party influence. He signed the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation but vigorously opposed the Constitution. He then served in Congress where he supported Alexander Hamilton’s federalist agenda ensuring the future financial security of the young republic. He became a Republican in 1800, lost several contests for Governor of Massachusetts. But he was elected Madison’s Vice President and stayed loyal to him when most of the Republicans split off over Madison’s handling of the war.
Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote that he was “a genuine friend of republican forms of government.” One of Gerry’s own statements was “I hold it to be the duty of every citizen, though he may have but one day to live, to devote the day to the good of his country.”
His home at Elmwood is located a half mile from Harvard’s campus and has remained a place where Harvard people have lived. The school purchased it in 1962 and its President has resided there ever since. Gerry was buried in the Congressional Cemetery in DC.
Elbridge Gerry was a great American Patriot who worked tirelessly for the betterment of our nation. His expectation was for all of us to do likewise.
Please remember Wolf’s rules for our community. In general that means to be respectful to each other and to pull no shenanigans that your mom might find offensive or otherwise cause jail time. That said, free speech is honored here.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
Our various sister sites, listed in the Blogroll in the sidebar
Our beloved country is under Occupation by hostile forces.
Daily outrage and epic phuckery abound.
We can give in to despair…or we can be defiant and fight back in any way that we can.
Joe Biden didn’t win.
And we will keep saying Joe Biden didn’t win until we get His Fraudulency out of our White House.
Wolfie’s Wheatie’s Word of the Week:
onomasiology
noun
the study of nomenclature
a branch of lexicology concerned with the names of concepts
the study of words and expressions having similar or associated concepts and a basis (as social, regional, occupational) for being grouped
a branch of linguistics concerned with the question “how do you express X?”
Used in a sentence
The onomasiology of Trump enemy nicknames will one day be a scholarly sub-specialty.
Used in another sentence
Onomasiology, as a part of lexicology, starts from a concept which is taken to be prior (i.e. an idea, an object, a quality, an activity etc.) and asks for its names.
How the Gab AI “Gabby” illustrates the idea of onomasiology
Shown in an image of text
MUSIC!
A Bhutanese folk song about onomasiology (seriously)
Some musical, medical journalism featuring Heart!
THE STUFF
More math and computer stories, featuring that annoyingly happy woman with a British accent.
Welcome. Please visit this post for our long-standing site rules. ### Kindly identify all AI products, per warning in the header ###
2024 Presidential Election Map by County. (an uncertain credit) Let us Never Forget: our VOTES gave the Trump Administration a Mandate to FIX IT ALL.
Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. — Galatians 5:1
We got our miracle. America is back.
Let us dedicate ourselves to the cleansing, healing, and rebuilding of our beautiful nation.
God will guide us. Prayers & thanks to God for President Donald J. Trump.
Exodus Jubilation.
This is the first week of the Eastertide season.
Eastertide (also known as Eastertime or the Easter season) or Paschaltide (also known as Paschaltime or the Paschal season) is a festal season in the liturgical year of Christianity that focuses on celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The church refers to this period of time after the resurrection as the Paschal Season. What are they referring to?
It’s all about the Passover.
…the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus comes clothed to us in the imagery, symbolism, and language of the Jewish Passover. In fact, the name these early Christians give to their Easter festival is the Greek word pascha. Pascha is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Pesach, which is the Hebrew name for Passover. The Latin church picks up this usage and calls Easter in Latin as pascha as well. And from that Latin origin, modern European romance languages get their name for Easter: French: Paques, Spanish: Pascua, Italian: Pasqua. — Gordon Lindsey, The Bible is in My Blood
Drawing parallels between the exodus and the resurrection, Christians see the Exodus as a type, a foreshadowing of the massive jailbreak when Christ frees the righteous dead from the shadow-lands of the underworld, leading them in triumph from darkness into His light. And Christ’s defeat of sin and death is indeed, Good News.
This parallel is highlighted not only within the Gospel accounts themselves, but throughout the New Testament.
For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. — 1 Corinthians 5:6-8
Rejoice!
Easter’s message rings out in the traditional greeting; one says, “Christ is risen!” and to which the response is, “He is risen indeed, Alleluia!” There is joy in the air. An exuberance, a jubilation, as believers celebrate the defeat of their enemy, and the triumph of their Savior.
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life! — Paschal troparion, Christos anesti
In the book of Exodus, after witnessing the Egyptians absolute defeat by the hand of God, the people of Israel, led by Moses, break into song–not only singing–but dancing in celebration. Finally, they are beginning to believe that they have been freed from their oppressors.
We see a people filled with exuberant jubilation rejoicing over the utter defeat of their enemy, and the stunning triumph of their saving God.
And we are right there with them in this Eastertide season. God has mightily delivered us. Let us rejoice!
The Song of Moses
Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD: (Exodus 15:1-21)
I will sing to the LORD, for he is gloriously triumphant; horse and chariot he has cast into the sea.
My strength and my refuge is the LORD, and he has become my savior. This is my God, I praise him; the God of my father, I extol him.
The LORD is a warrior, LORD is his name!
Pharaoh’s chariots and army he hurled into the sea; the elite of his officers were drowned in the Red Sea.
The flood waters covered them, they sank into the depths like a stone.
Your right hand, O LORD, magnificent in power, your right hand, O LORD, shattered the enemy.
In your great majesty you overthrew your adversaries; you loosed your wrath to consume them like stubble.
At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up, the flowing waters stood like a mound, the flood waters foamed in the midst of the sea.
The enemy boasted, “I will pursue and overtake them; I will divide the spoils and have my fill of them; I will draw my sword; my hand will despoil them!”
When you blew with your breath, the sea covered them; like lead they sank in the mighty waters.
Who is like you among the gods, O LORD? Who is like you, magnificent among the holy ones? Awe-inspiring in deeds of renown, worker of wonders, when you stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them!
In your love you led the people you redeemed; in your strength you guided them to your holy dwelling.
The peoples heard and quaked; anguish gripped the dwellers in Philistia.
Then were the chieftains of Edom dismayed, the nobles of Moab seized by trembling;
All the inhabitants of Canaan melted away; terror and dread fell upon them.
By the might of your arm they became silent like stone, while your people, LORD, passed over, while the people whom you created passed over.
You brought them in, you planted them on the mountain that is your own—
The place you made the base of your throne, LORD, the sanctuary, LORD, your hands established.
May the LORD reign forever and ever!
When Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen entered the sea, the LORD made the waters of the sea flow back upon them, though the Israelites walked on dry land through the midst of the sea.
Then the prophet Miriam, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine in her hand, while all the women went out after her with tambourines, dancing; and she responded to them:
Sing to the LORD, for he is gloriously triumphant; horse and chariot he has cast into the sea.
God Bless America, Land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America, My home sweet home.
It is time for to take a breather of sorts relating to the signers of the Declaration of Independence. We will return to a specific founding father next week. I thought it would be interesting to spend some time on the important value of American women during the period. There was nothing of more importance to America’s survival than the families who lived here. This meant men and women needed to build lives together, get Biblical and multiply. 😉
The role of women in accomplishing the mission of our nation should not be ignored as it was vital to our survival.
Courting
Shall we discuss the ancient art of attraction between females and males? Or is it science; and if it is, is it settled science? 😂
From the Colonial Williamsburg website,
It may be that the traditional route to conjugal correctness—chaste courtship, formal engagement, church wedding, consummation, and parenthood, in that order—is less traveled. But historians say the modern, mixed-up, anything-goes form of bonding that includes physical intimacy and permanent or temporary cohabitation, with children born in or out of wedlock, is not altogether different from some of the practices of segments of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century populations.
As far as chaste courtship is concerned, the good old days have been overrated, almost as mythical as the Standish-Mullins-Alden triangle that Longfellow invented. Blame human nature if you like, but for want of a better phrase, hanky-panky was as prevalent among some eighteenth-century folks as it is among some of the twenty-first’s. Beyond doubt, most people stayed strictly within the bounds of propriety, but in the mid to late 1700s, more than one girl in three was pregnant when she walked down the aisle. In parts of Britain, 50 percent of brides were great with child.
Well, well, well. It seems some things never change.
There are many sources one can read that reflect on the patriarchal dominated aspects of families during the period. Marriages were often prearranged for business and wealth purposes. The requirement of attraction and love between partners was nearly non existent with some. Outward displays of affection even between married couples were generally frowned upon leading into the Revolutionary War period. Courtship for many was a formal process of marrying two families together to pursue common goals. That is unless you were a commoner in which case you could pair up and just say vows to each other to start cohabitating legally.
With independence and as America began to develop its own ways of doing things, courting practices gradually changed with it. Which leads to the linked story below involving a few founder couples and their marital situations.
Cupid’s arrow hit some hard as expressed in the following,
“You engross my thoughts too entirely to allow me to think of any thing else—you not only employ my mind all day; but you intrude upon my sleep. I meet you in every dream—and when I wake I cannot close my eyes again for ruminating on your sweetness.” — Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Schuyler, October 1780
The Enlightenment era had brought change in many beliefs and practices. As previously discussed it was a major motivator of the attitudes and approaches of Thomas Jefferson. It seems the timing was good for a better way to view courting and marital relationships in America. Below is a section from an article in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts that describes the change well.
For the men and women who came of age after the Revolution, selecting a marriage partner was the most important decision of their lives. In generations past, parents had played a decisive role in these negotiations. But over the course of the 18th century, young people gained more independence in their choices. And romantic love—based on mutual affection and companionship—became the ideal.
Putting love at the center of courtship also raised the stakes. Men became more vulnerable to personal rejections. For women, the perils were greater. A string of broken engagements could cast the woman as a flirt—a “coquette” in the language of the day—or, worse, prompt speculation about her virtue. A marriage entered into too hastily held its own dangers. A woman’s husband largely determined the comforts and privileges she would enjoy as a wife. While he could participate in the public world of commerce and politics, she had only the home she created with him from which to draw happiness.
Discovering the personality of a potential spouse could be a delightful adventure—conducted through breathless dances, nighttime walks and, of course, intimate cups of tea—but it was also a serious matter that demanded careful consideration.
Sounds like a big improvement from dad and mom picking one out to me.
Childbearing
In doing these American Stories it has been very obvious that having children during those days was not an easy task and that it frequently was met with great sorrow. Many of these celebrated founding fathers lost their wives and children during childbirth. Based on research of records some sources estimated that 1-2% of the women died during delivery. The odds escalated with each childbirth thereafter. In addition it is estimated that 20% of the children died between birth and five years old. The average woman had seven live childbirths during her lifetime in the 18th and 19th century. According to a number of their personal journals it appears many prepared for their own deaths mentally as well as by writing wills when they learned they were pregnant.
For slaves the odds were far worse. Estimates range from 28-40% of the children died at birth with an estimated 40-50% mortality rate by age ten. Malnutrition, being overworked, lack of access to medical care, diseases and so on made things worse for them.
Despite all of that the population of America doubled about every 25 years and the odds of surviving childbirth for both mother and child improved as the nation became more settled.
Women Warfighters?!
Check this out from the linked article below.
There are known cases of women who chose to actively join the armies as fighting soldiers. One of the most famous of these women was Deborah Sampson. Originally from Massachusetts, she disguised herself as a man in order to fight in the Continental Army. Serving under the alias of her deceased brother, she fought with the light infantry company of the Fourth Massachusetts Regiment. She was wounded in action in Tarrytown, New York, with two bullets in her thigh and a gash on her forehead. Not wanting her identity to be revealed, she had her head wound treated and then left the field hospital unnoticed. She was later able to extract one of the bullets from her thigh with a knife. Her identity was finally revealed during the summer of 1783 when she contracted a fever while on duty in Philadelphia. After the Treaty of Paris, she was given an honorable discharge from the army. She went on to marry and had three children, settling down back in Massachusetts. To help make ends meet, she often gave public lectures about her wartime service. By the time she died in 1827, she was collecting minimal pensions for her service from Massachusetts and the federal government.
She was a major league bad azz. That article opens the eyes about the real involvement of women in support of the war efforts as well as keeping families and communities going back home. The following digs deeper into the women that traveled with their husbands in the military.
From it we also learn the meaning behind the Molly Pitcher name that I am sure our mollypitcher can opine about. Another link below gives more names and the nature of their contributions.
Prior to the war, it appears the primary education for women was to learn to read and do basic math to help teach the children and run the home. In doing so the women were to teach the children religious studies. It is no secret that religion had a major place in the homes and society of the colonies. Many colonists had previously fled religious persecution and wanted no part of it in America – freedom of religion was a requirement. They worked to make sure it was built into the fabric of the American Way.
After the Revolutionary War the efforts of leaders seemed to evolve into providing more opportunities for women to gain a broad based education and to eventually become educators as a result. They knew America and its future was dependent upon an educated population. However, there was forward thinking about the subject prior to and during the war as the following article discusses for women in Concord, Lincoln and Lexington, MA. The activities even included women teaching and administering.
The link below goes into more detail that involves founding father Benjamin Franklin’s evolution in understanding the value of a broader education for women.
Many of the founding fathers desired to provide public education for all male and female children to gain acceptance and to be provided throughout the states post war. Some took steps to accomplish the vision that eventually led to women receiving a more robust education. At times it was met with great resistance from traditional, fundamentalist religions as well as from those who viewed formal education as impractical. A handful of founders agreed with what founder Charles Carroll sought, that younger women slaves should be educated so they could teach their husbands and children. They felt it would help them integrate into society better since they believed the slaves would inevitably be freed.
Religion And The Family
To better understand the value and place of women in the period one needs to understand the order and nature of families. The following linked article is provided as a teacher resource and it provides some really good information on giving a summary view from a Protestant denominational standpoint using several books as sources.
The vast majority of our founders and general population were Protestant in their beliefs. The article gives examples from one source that divided the families into three groups.
We will discuss the overall importance of religion in America in a later Part in a few weeks.
For Entertainment
As the wife of a commoner colonist husband the following might describe the man who came home to her after a night out with the boys, or, might describe her own activities out on the town with her husband. From the Revolutionary War Journal comes the following,
Toasts and common songs brought people of all stations together. Taverns were male domains where men drank heavily, cursed frequently, gambled, fenced goods, passed money, and fought – at times resulting in murder. Women rarely set foot in a tavern unless she was traveling with a male companion or were a prostitute. Occasionally dances were arranged which allowed women who entered and exited separately from the men.
Songs sung in taverns was usually performed by patrons for their own entertainment singing solo or in large groups. Tavern owners rarely hired musicians to perform. Entertainers would show up at a tavern hoping to entertain the patrons, making them happy enough to make a donation. These musicians often mixed ballads of laments that were subdued and reflective, with rowdy drinking songs that encouraged the clientele to join in. These musicians often played an instrument. The violin was most common followed by the flute, fife, and trumpet. The Pochette or “traveling violin” was small and very portable. Occasionally tavern owners would own instruments and provide them for the musician’s use such as a violin or harpsichord. Most performers made their own instruments and composed many of their own ballads.
Below is a song originating in Scotland that undoubtedly would have been sung in those taverns.
For the more refined couples of that day, there might be a performance of Handel’s Messiah at Trinity Church in New York City.
If in Philadelphia those same couples might take in a Alexander Reinagle piano concert with friends.
At least it gave the wife a break from the kids.
Prominent Women
There is some interesting summary background information on these ten “amazing” women discussed in the linked article below.
Pay attention next week, we have an American woman married to a French guy that makes a cameo appearance near the end.
We give thanks for these women as they made us better as a nation while fulfilling equally important roles as the founding fathers for We the People.
Please remember Wolf’s rules for our community. In general that means to be respectful to each other and to pull no shenanigans that your mom might find offensive or otherwise cause jail time. That said, free speech is honored here.
Joe Biden never won. This is our Real President – 45, 46, 47.
AND our beautiful REALFLOTUS.
This Stormwatch Monday Open Thread remains open – VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA/KAG/KMAG world (with KMAG being a bit of both).
From the throats of herons and lost wolves, we learn of a mistake made by the gods. They gave us red-winged birds and vesper sparrows who make songs of leaf-light and flying. The gods thought we’d be so happy— all that fruit, one big garden, our nakedness in sun and water. They never counted on our needing a sound for longing, too. They gave that to the loon, to wild dogs whose teeth throb from the light of the moon; they poured it into the long necks of birds. How could they have known? Where in our bodies would they have moored the slender cry of the crane who calls out that night is closing the sky, taking away the glinted green of the frogs’ moist backs, the dazzle the sun makes of every hair, of every shining wing?
MUSIC!
A “deep house” electronica playlist called “Orectic Mix”……..
Epic orchestral video found by searching on “orectic music”
THE STUFF
SO – for “Action April” we are taking two weeks to study something called the Principle of Least Action.
Here is the second of TWO videos covering the topic.
Not sure I’m buying this, as my colleague, Prof. Suspicious Cat, has questions similar to those mentioned in the video, about the significance and interpretation of the role of the diffraction grating, and its potential behavior in lensing at odd angles.
Welcome. Please visit this post for our long-standing site rules. ### Kindly identify all AI products, per warning in the header ###
2024 Presidential Election Map by County. (an uncertain credit) Let us Never Forget: our VOTES gave the Trump Administration a Mandate to FIX IT ALL.
Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. — Galatians 5:1
We got our miracle. America is back.
Let us dedicate ourselves to the cleansing, healing, and rebuilding of our beautiful nation.
God will guide us. Prayers & thanks to God for President Donald J. Trump.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty. Souveraineté. What does this word, sovereignty, mean? It seems to mean different things to different people.
This Kind of Sovereign?
Judging by a paper called, “A QUICK GUIDE TO SOVEREIGN CITIZENS,” by the UNC School of Government, there are some people that think they can become free by resisting the governmental structures currently in place in our nation. In brief, the paper tells us:
“Sovereign citizen” is a catchall phrase referring to a variety of anti-government individuals and groups who share some common beliefs and behaviors. The organizations to which many sovereign citizens belong have a variety of names… In one way or another, though, all sovereign citizens, whether tied to an organization or not, adhere to a view that the existing American governmental structure, including the courts and law enforcement, is illegitimate and that they, the sovereign citizens, retain an individual common law identity exempting them from the authority of those fraudulent government institutions.
Hmmmm. Maybe this isn’t the kind of sovereign we were looking for.
A Different Take on Sovereignty.
We’ve already had some discussion recently on this essay, but you might not have read far enough down to reach this fantastic claim:
… Still, their eyes were always looking forward, toward a moment when the government wouldn’t just digitize its services but its sovereignty. Enter DOGE. The Department of Government Efficiency didn’t materialize in a vacuum. It was seeded during the Obama years, whispered into existence by those who knew that the real power would come not from Congress, but from a system nimble enough to move faster than legislation, and quiet enough to reshape infrastructure without fanfare. It began as the United States Digital Service—a small team of technocrats who fixed websites, sure, but more importantly, mapped the internal circuitry of American bureaucracy. They weren’t patching holes. They were creating access points. And then, just as quietly as they arrived, they left the back door open.
Sounds interesting. But I’m not sure exactly how to respond. The author provides three hypothetical outcomes of the end of Act III. The second outcome, narrative fracture, doesn’t look good. The first outcome, sovereign reset, is just about what most people seem to want. But that third outcome—if it is even possible—the revelation state, I think people with a heart to be free might want an outcome like this:
It’s not just about controlling the machine—it’s about purifying it. The Sovereign Reset without accountability is stable, but cold. The Narrative Fracture without vision is chaotic and likely irreparable. But the Revelation State? That’s the rarest kind of government: One that awakens, without collapsing. One that confesses, without capitulating. One that still serves, even after seizing control.
However, does this path return us to the intentions of the Founding Fathers of our nation? I wonder.
The Declaration of Independence affirmed the republican principle of popular government. The people were the source of all sovereignty, or authority, in the representative government. They gave their consent to their elected representatives to govern them. The document stated, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving [receiving] their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The Preamble to the Constitution outlined that the new constitutional government was also to be based on this principle of popular sovereignty. It stated, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.” This meant that the people of the United States, through their representatives, established this new government. The previous government under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789) did not have sufficient power to govern the nation because the states were sovereign.
The core purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to establish a just political order that recognized human equality in natural rights for all persons. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [impossible to take away] Rights.” This meant that the equality of all people would be the basis of any American system of government. This promise, though not fully realized, has guided American political debates ever since.
This was recognized in the Preamble, which stated simply that one of its main goals was to “establish Justice.” Justice meant that all were equal under the law and equal in their rights. Individuals would be able to pursue their own happiness and have equal opportunity to work hard and keep the fruits of their labor. James Madison noted the importance of justice in Federalist No. 51 when he wrote, “Justice is the end [purpose] of government. It is the end of civil society.”
God as Sovereign.
On this Maundy Thursday of the Christian Holy Week, it seems fitting to reflect on how Jesus the Christ, and our Lord, presented his sovereignty in the last hours before laying down his life for those he came to redeem.
From the Gospel of John 18:33-19:22 (AMPC):
So Pilate went back again into the judgment hall and called Jesus and asked Him, Are You the King of the Jews? Jesus replied, Are you saying this of yourself [on your own initiative], or have others told you about Me?
Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Your [own] people and nation and their chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done? Jesus answered, My kingdom (kingship, royal power) belongs not to this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My followers would have been fighting to keep Me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, My kingdom is not from here (this world); [it has no such origin or source].
Pilate said to Him, Then You are a King? Jesus answered, You say it! [You speak correctly!] For I am a King. [Certainly I am a King!] This is why I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the Truth. Everyone who is of the Truth [who is a friend of the Truth, who belongs to the Truth] hears and listens to My voice.
Pilate said to Him, What is Truth? On saying this he went out to the Jews again and told them, I find no fault in Him. But it is your custom that I release one [prisoner] for you at the Passover. So shall I release for you the King of the Jews?
Then they all shouted back again, Not Him [not this Man], but Barabbas! Now Barabbas was a robber. So then Pilate took Jesus and scourged (flogged, whipped) Him. And the soldiers, having twisted together a crown of thorns, put it on His head, and threw a purple cloak around Him. And they kept coming to Him and saying, Hail, King of the Jews! [Good health to you! Peace to you! Long life to you, King of the Jews!] And they struck Him with the palms of their hands.
Then Pilate went out again and said to them, See, I bring Him out to you, so that you may know that I find no fault (crime, cause for accusation) in Him. So Jesus came out wearing the thorny crown and purple cloak, and Pilate said to them, See, [here is] the Man!
When the chief priests and attendants (guards) saw Him, they cried out, Crucify Him! Crucify Him! Pilate said to them, Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no fault (crime) in Him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to that law He should die, because He has claimed and made Himself out to be the Son of God.
So, when Pilate heard this said, he was more alarmed and awestricken and afraid than before. He went into the judgment hall again and said to Jesus, Where are You from? [To what world do You belong?] But Jesus did not answer him.
So Pilate said to Him, Will You not speak [even] to me? Do You not know that I have power (authority) to release You and I have power to crucify You? Jesus answered, You would not have any power or authority whatsoever against (over) Me if it were not given you from above. For this reason the sin and guilt of the one who delivered Me over to you is greater.
Upon this, Pilate wanted (sought, was anxious) to release Him, but the Jews kept shrieking, If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar! Anybody who makes himself [out to be] a king sets himself up against Caesar [is a rebel against the emperor]!
Hearing this, Pilate brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called the Pavement [the Mosaic Pavement, the Stone Platform]—in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about the sixth hour (about twelve o’clock noon). He said to the Jews, See, [here is] your King! But they shouted, Away with Him! Away with Him! Crucify Him! Pilate said to them, Crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar!
Then he delivered Him over to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led [Him] away; so He went out, bearing His own cross, to the spot called The Place of the Skull—in Hebrew it is called Golgotha. There they crucified Him, and with Him two others—one on either side and Jesus between them.
And Pilate also wrote a title (an inscription on a placard) and put it on the cross. And the writing was: Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews. And many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, [and] in Greek. Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, Do not write, The King of the Jews, but, He said, I am King of the Jews.
Pilate replied, What I have written, I have written.
Prayer.
God Bless America, Land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America, My home sweet home.
