“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
In the next two parts we take a walk back in time to the first half of the 1700’s in England and then back across the pond to the colonies. We need to establish the influence one fiery preacher of the Gospels had in both England and the colonies as well as on one B. Franklin, Printer among millions of others who heard the preaching. Yes – millions. Per numerous historical accounts George Whitefield preached to over 10 million people during his years on the planet. It is believed over 2 million people accepted Christ from his efforts during this time with most of that number within America’s population.
This discussion of Whitefield will help us better understand not only B and his personal beliefs, but establish why he and that preacher friend of his was so important to our independence and success as a nation. If you are unaware of the history and the seeds that were planted leading up to the patriot movement’s acts of rebellion, you may not grasp the full importance of what the Declaration of Independence states. Despite the anti-Christian recency bias we find today, America would not be America without Christianity. It is a cornerstone of our foundation as a nation. From the pilgrims forward it has guided our principles and approach to relations domestically as well as with the rest of the world.
George Whitefield was born in 1713 in Gloucester, England. His parents kept an inn there and he was the fifth of seven children. His father died when he was two years old. As he aged he helped his mother with the inn. Also as he grew older he discovered he had a passion for acting. However, the family had no money for him to continue his education. So he became a servitor to be able to attend the University of Oxford. This involved him becoming a servant doing simple basic living chores for staff and students there in exchange for free tuition.
George wanted to do good works and obey God, but had not yet fully understood the salvation offered by acceptance of Christ. That all changed when he read the book, The Life of God in the Soul of Man. Finally realizing he could not earn God’s favor by doing good works, he accepted Christ as his personal savior and was converted. He realized that all mankind has sinned against God’s will for us and that he needed God’s grace in the person of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. He accepted that this righteousness of Christ was then imputed to all who believed and accepted, thereby creating a new heart and nature that willingly desired to serve God.
We hillbillies call it taking off the old coat and putting on the new. Hi there, Wolf!
After Whitefield’s conversion the Bishop of Gloucester ordained him a Deacon in the Church Of England. He began preaching one week after his ordination. He soon took to preaching the Word of God wherever the people were since the Church of England did not give him a church. He was disappointed, but it did not deter him and as a result he went to the parks and fields to reach the people who did not go to church.
Soon, America and Great Britain would never be the same again. However, there was a friend/foe relationship with another major evangelical contemporary of that period who was educated in the same university in the same general time frame as George.
John Wesley and George Whitefield
Rather than summarize this relationship, I am going to post a link below to a short story about the two. In this part I would prefer to avoid a discussion about the issue that divided them – Calvinism versus Arminianism. The truth is that I personally believe elements of both of these Christian doctrines. At that time it was an extremely divisive issue within the clergy. It drove a wedge in the relationship of Wesley and Whitefield. There are letters to each other available for review online that are heart-wrenching. One I read from Whitefield to Wesley sounds like Paul’s reproach of Peter that we read in his letter in scripture. Just know that the two reconciled late in life, basically agreeing to disagree, as should all of us who allow a dividing doctrine to infest our hearts.
The common theme of the two was that they went to the people in both England and the colonies with the intent to bring the message of salvation in Christ as well as providing for the least of these. Both were active in ministry in England prior to going to the colonies. Both were religious until experiencing a time when they found their personal hearts strangely warmed by Christ, a situation and understanding that many believers would call being born again. Both sought for all the experience of seeking Christian perfection as a life long worthy endeavor.
Being “born again” is a real thing. It happened to me.
The Fields Were Ripe For Harvest
By 1738, Whitefield felt the call to go to Georgia in the colonies to minister to orphans there after an unsuccessful, despondent Wesley returned to England at the same time. George began preaching at Christ Church in Savannah, which had been founded by Wesley previously. The Wesley brothers (John and Charles) were not all that pleased with their own results in that colony as they were met with much resistance. Whitefield felt the opposite. He embraced the people and the mission. His passion for the orphans was legendary. He solicited funds and opened three schools, one of which was for girls. He spent every available moment preaching the Word throughout the region. His bullhorn like voice could be heard a mile away, so he was very effective with outdoor assemblies where thousands would attend each time.
Seven months later he decided to return to England and arrived there months later after a very perilous voyage. Not long after arrival he was ordained a priest in the Church of England. After all he was willing to do and had accomplished he believed churches would be opened for him to preach, but the opposite was true. As a man of the people growing up in a lower status he was not welcomed in the pulpits of establishment churches. He made the best of it, preaching wherever he was welcomed. His presence was greatly appreciated when he preached in coal country where 10,000 people at a time would come to hear him speak. What an amazing sight and sound it would have been there to witness thousands standing to sing hymns and praise the Lord during the times he spoke. It was said that the singing could be heard some two miles away.
His largest successes in reaching the people came when preaching in a large, open tract of land known as the Moorfields. He set no schedule for doing so, but no matter whether he preached in the early morning or at night, thousands would come to listen and participate. One morning 20,000 came and later that evening the same day some 35,000 were there to hear him. Not all appreciated what he had to say. He once said, “I was honored with having stones, dirt, rotten eggs and pieces of dead cats thrown at me.” 😂 During one event, 80,000 people came to hear him preach 1.5 hours.
Yet, he was only 25 years old during those days. Wow.
Unfortunately his popularity with the masses disappointed the establishment and his bishop denounced him by August 1739. So, he headed back to the colonies with donations for his planned orphanages. He arrived in Philadelphia in late October and began preaching there. During the short time he was there he preached to tens of thousands of colonists at at time. It was during one of those times he first met B. Franklin, Printer.
His intent was always to return to Georgia and establish the orphan ministry there, but his next stop was New York where there was a similar response to his preaching. He stayed a short time before preaching his way down the Atlantic coast, traveling by horseback, until he finally arrived in Savannah in January 1740. He then went about building the orphanage. By September he was sailing back north to the New England area to begin preaching there. It was in this period that historians state our country’s first “great awakening” occurred.
The great American evangelist,Jonathon Edwards, had been preparing the area for revival for some time before Whitefield. When George arrived, it all broke loose. He was invited to speak by colonial governors and colleges such as Harvard. The places would become so crowded they had to turn people away. This revival lasted 1.5 years before Whitefield returned to England again. The Christian seeds had been planted that would eventually lead to our founding as a nation.
Whether you the reader personally believe in Christianity or not; this historical truth cannot be altered by those seeking to rewrite history or introduce counter narratives. The changes in mind and hearts of We the People in those days flowed into our founding documents that have governed our nation for 250 years. Within those documents We the People acknowledge God’s providence. The law itself is largely in alignment with Biblical principles. We the People of those days cut a forever deal with the Almighty. As has been proven in our nation’s history, any turning from it by leaders or We the People will result in great angst and even violence as discipline. We just need to stop being the prodigal son as a nation and start doing God’s will. Back to Whitefield…
Upon his arrival in England he learned that his friend John Wesley had turned from the Calvinistic Methodism that both embraced as younger preachers. As a result they went their separate ways. Whitefield’s base of preaching moved back to the Moorfields and a tabernacle was built, however, he traveled throughout Great Britain preaching as requested. While in Wales he met his future wife, Elizabeth, a widow. They married and had one son in 1743, who passed away as a four month old baby.
He made seven trips in total to America before passing away in Massachusetts some two hours after preaching before thousands in 1770. His words and presence always sparked an emotional response from those who heard him. Again, the response would be negative at times. There was one occasion he was beaten badly with a cane by a deranged man and other times when he was stoned both in England and in the colonies. Throughout it all he never lost his fervor for bringing God’s Word.
At this point we will conclude until next time with some of his interactions with B, a key founding father with whom he never lost contact and cared deeply about. It is now time to discuss another signer from Pennsylvania.
James Wilson
With James Wilson we have another brilliant attorney and associate justice to the Supreme Court as a founding father who served nobly only to fall victim to seeking riches in land speculation with excessive debt at the end of his life. It sounds like a familiar story with decisions and a similar fate that awaited another previous discussed founder, James Morris.
James Wilson was born in Fife, Scotland in 1742, the middle child of seven in a hard working farming family of the Presbyterian faith. His father rented the land he farmed. At age 15 he entered, studied and graduated from the University of St. Andrews. He followed that with studies at Edinburgh and Glasgow without graduating. In 1765 he emigrated to the colonies at New York in the middle of the Stamp Act controversy and soon moved to Philadelphia. He brought with him letters of introduction that enabled him to receive a job tutoring and teaching at the College of Philadelphia (Penn). While there he proceeded to study law under highly respected John Dickinson. For his work at the school he received an honorary Masters of Arts and later in life, a LL.D. Two years after arrival in 1767 he earned admission to the bar and established a law practice in Reading, PA, where he became very successful. In 1771 he married Rachel Byrd and they had six children together.
The aftermath of the Stamp Act encouraged him to deeply study the legal relationship between Great Britain and the colonies. Taxation without representation was a deal killer as far as Wilson was concerned, so he published his position on the subject. As he continued to research he concluded there was very little basis for the cause of independence for the colonists, yet, there was a recognition that all colonists were citizens of Great Britain with equal rights as residents. As a result in his view the acts Parliament took that related to the colonies were illegal due to the colonists lack of equal representation in governance in the same manner as citizens located in Great Britain.
This legal approach was utilized when the Declaration of Independence was drafted. It called out the King for misconduct as a result as we can see from the wording in the document. Wilson published this legal interpretation in 1774. What happened next is best described by this quote from the Descendants site;
Wilson’s language adopting the doctrine of popular sovereignty and natural rights foreshadowed the content of the Declaration of Independence two years later, as indicated by an early paragraph:
All men are, by nature, equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it: such consent was given with a view to endure and to increase the happiness of the governed, above what they could enjoy in an independent and unconnected state of nature. The consequence is that the happiness of the society is the first law of every government.
Seems we have seen that content phrased into our Declaration of Independence. But who knew James Wilson was the primary source? Not this guy.
Later in 1774, Wilson was made head of the committee of correspondence at Carlisle and was elected to the first Provincial Conference at Philadelphia. In January 1775, he was a member of the Convention of the Province and in May joined the Continental Congress. A year later in June 1776 as the Congress contemplated Richard Henry Lee’s resolution for independence, Wilson sensed the Congressional members were not yet ready for an affirmative vote as the states were split seven for and five against at that point. He voted for a delay with other key members. After more spirited discussions, three weeks later the vote was held. He, John Morton, and our boy B voted for it, which put Pennsylvania in the for independence column by a vote of 3-2.
After approval and signatures, they quickly moved toward the establishment of state constitutions. Wilson found himself on the wrong side of the issues in Pennsylvania, so he was removed from Congress in 1777. In addition to his return to the law practice, from which he assisted many loyalists, he became an advocate general for France for a handful of years. He was also involved in the formation of the Bank of North America with Robert Morris in 1780 that we addressed in that part. This bank formation provided a much needed funding source for our young nation’s treasury.
Wilson returned to Congress when conservatives assumed more power over state affairs in 1782. He served in it until 1787 when it came time for the Constitutional Convention. His wife had passed away the previous year, so all of his efforts went toward the work.
While at the Convention he played a major role as a framer of the document and was considered by many to be the most knowledgeable lawyer in the group. He was a prominent speaker in the assembly. He continued stressing his emphasis on natural rights within the proposed law. With groups opposing each other regarding election of the President by popular vote (Wilson supported) or legislative vote, Wilson proposed the Electoral College that is now used. At first the idea was rejected in favor of a legislative vote, however, those supporters could not agree on the terms. With James Madison and Gouverneur Morris as strong supporters of Wilson’s proposal, a compromise was reached in the committee incorporating an acceptable version of the Electoral College into the Constitution.
After this work Wilson was selected by Washington to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court in 1789. He served until his death from a stroke brought on by malaria in 1798. In 1790 he also became the first law professor in the history of the College of Philadelphia/Penn. In 1793 he married Hannah Gray. They had a child together who passed away at age three. Although Wilson claimed to be anti-slavery, he had a slave for most of his adult life. Hannah requested the man’s release and in 1794 he did so.
However, this last decade of Wilson’s life was tumultuous. He fell victim to the same temptation of Robert Morris through excessive land speculation. He owed hundreds of thousands of dollars on land deals, but would not stop buying more until he became insolvent. He was briefly jailed in debtor’s prison in New Jersey before his son paid the related debt off. He spent the last year of his life running away from other creditors and ended up dying in Edenton, NC in poverty. He was initially interred there before his remains were removed and brought back to the Christ Churchyard in Philadelphia where other founders are interred.
James Wilson as a founding father is another man who is not typically discussed. However, he left a long lasting positive imprint on our nation through his law career and particularly with the Constitution. We remain greatly appreciative of his patriotic service to our country.
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.
You will recall that one of the most important functions of this site is that we be able to tell the White Hats (presuming that such people exist, which seems increasingly likely) what we really think about things. We need to do this in a timely fashion, too.
We are now entering one of the most dangerous phases of the Trump administration, where things get real – and therefore really dangerous. Honest, frank talk is needed. Free speech is needed. We need to be able to say what we really think. ALL OF US.
Trump is entering (openly, since we’ve always been “involved”) as a third party into a conflict where both sides, to some extent, hate free speech, hate certain truths, and rely on censorship as a tool of war.
This AMERICAN site, which treasures free speech and the truth, will not be a casualty of that conflict, nor of the tactics of the two sides.
A significant strategy of those who are either opposed to Trump and MAGA – or for whom Trump and MAGA are secondary considerations and expendable – has been to slowly drive people from the public square – including this very site – using a variety of tools and tactics. Some divisions are normal, but others are not. The recent divisions over Epstein and Gaza are not, in my opinion, organic, despite using important, organic issues.
One way to avoid division is to declare topics “off limits” – including in (most ironically) the “open threads”. That will not happen. Nor will a negotiated “code of silence” which accomplishes the same thing. The detente of non-discussion is not an acceptable term of peace. And yet, the fighting over specific issues is calculated to drive people away, ultimately. If we don’t speak, the enemies of free and true speech win. If we leave, the enemies of free and true speech win.
Therefore, I am going to create some capability for people to screen whose comments they see or don’t see, and what subjects they see or don’t see. In this way, people will not be forced to wade through content that makes their time here feel like a burden.
I think we have enough healthy exposure to opposing viewpoints here already.
I am already determining how exactly I am going to be able to let people control their feed. I will have to use a programming language I hate, and integrate my work with code that is (how do I say this kindly?) “less than optimal”. But it can be done. I have tested the basic concepts, and what I am thinking is possible, actually works.
Sadly, that programming will not be easy. It will take weeks.
Therefore, I am going to stop doing anything but placeholders on Mondays and Thursdays. After next week, you will only see placeholders on those days.
I ask for your patience during this time. Once I have the new code in place, I will let you know. I may or may not deploy interim versions – we’ll see. Please don’t complain if you see non-functional gizmos along the way!
You have my best wishes during this time. Please hang tough. If you can make it a few more weeks, that is all I need.
God bless all of you, you personally, Free Speech, President Trump, and America!
And if we can ask it most humbly and undeservingly, may God choose to bless this site as well.
We continue our review of Pennsylvania’s signers of the Declaration of Independence. First, let’s ask a couple of questions like which would be the better city to be called the “cradle of liberty” – Boston or Philadelphia?
A better question is what the heck happened to Philadelphia over the nearly 250 years since that point? The “city of brotherly love” has been anything but that for a very long time. However, in the development of our nation leading up to and immediately after the Revolutionary War, it really could be considered a cradle of liberty as well as the city of brotherly love. However, that is not the focus of this section.
To lead off today’s part I am giving my top five things I find interesting about Philly in no certain order.
Obviously in a series like this one we go first with Philly’s iconic symbol for freedom – the Liberty Bell.
Second, there another famous, important center and museum; the National Constitution Center.
The Declaration and Constitution are why we are here in this great country. The center is complete with a theater that shows Freedom Rising, life size statues of its signers, all sorts of multimedia exhibits as well as period artifacts. Cool place. Below is info about the center,
Third we have the home of famous trans swimmer, Lia Thomas. The University of Pennsylvania of Ivy League fame had origins as the College of Philadelphia during the incubation of the Independence movement as we know from past stories about other signers. Its founder and first president was B. Franklin, Printer. B had a new building completed for the Philadelphia Academy, the precursor school that eventually became Penn. He also put it to use for evangelical preacher George Whitefield to conduct revivals, focusing on the young people and students in the area.
Now, it is known internationally for encouraging women sports to be infested with sexual deviants and perverts. In the attempt they had their azzes handed to them by POTUS Trump; one of the school’s most famous alums as a 1968 graduate of their Wharton School with a B. S. in Economics, along with other members of his immediate family. Going woke has consequences. The patriot founding fathers that attended the school are probably trying to dig out of their graves and handle the restoration of Penn the same way they handled the Brits.
Could not resist using the mug shot.
😂
Fourth, we watch the most iconic modern day Philly scene ever!
For what it is worth, the building in the background is the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Below is a good primer if you ever decide to visit.
Finally, the most important culinary gift Philly has given to America is shown below.
B approves…
Enough with the preliminaries, it is on with the show. We focus on one of the “big dogs” (like B) of the patriot founding fathers.
Robert Morris
We need to spend some time digging into the life of the founding father who is referenced as the “Financier of the American Revolution”, Robert Morris. He is one of the few who signed the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. However, this story will be like a roller coaster ride at times and I am only hitting some of the primary information and events. Readers may want to look at any number of articles on the web that provide more detail as he was involved in so many activities that it would take too long to summarize them all here.
Morris was born in 1734 and raised for his first thirteen years in Liverpool, England. He was the child of Robert Morris, Sr. and mother, Elizabeth. Elizabeth died when he was two years old. He was raised by his maternal grandmother and his father immigrated to America in 1738 to work as a tobacco sales agent. At age fourteen, young Robert left to join his father in America in Oxford, MD. Morris, Sr. became very successful and was the author of a tobacco inspection law to reduce fraud that passed against strong opposition. He was known to be the first to keep his accounts in money as compared to the usual gallons, pounds, etc.
Upon young Morris’ arrival in 1748, he was tutored for a year by local minister, William Gordon. He soon left to live with a friend of his father’s in Philadelphia where he apprenticed in the merchant shipping business of wealthy Charles Willing as a clerk. When his father died in 1750, he was alone with no family in America at the age of sixteen. The death of his father was bizarre as described below from the Descendants site:
“In 1750 Robert Morris, Sr. gave a dinner party on board one of the ships of the company. As he left the ship in a small boat, a farewell salute was fired from the ship and wadding from the shot burst through the side of the boat and severely injured him. As a result of the accident, he died of blood poisoning on July 12, 1750.“
Young Robert continued his work there and was promoted up the ranks until becoming a full partner in 1757 with Charles Willing’s son, Thomas. Through the years Morris became wealthy and one of the most respected citizens in Philly. In 1769 at age 35 he married 20 year old Mary White, the daughter of a wealthy lawyer and land owner. They soon had the first of seven children together, which included future Congressman Thomas Morris. They worshipped at Anglican Christ Church in Philly with Benjamin Franklin. However, that did not prevent Robert from fathering a daughter, Polly, out of wedlock in 1763. However, he provided for her well into adulthood as he did a young son of his father’s, a half brother.
He served with Benjamin Franklin in the Pennsylvania State Assembly in 1775. He was then chosen to be a representative to the Continental Congress and as a member in the Secret Committee, which was assigned to procure weapons and munitions. He also served on the Committee of Secret Correspondence, which attempted to secure alliances with foreign nations. His shipping company was used frequently by the Congress. It is interesting to note that Morris was not in favor of independence until forced to making a decision AFTER its approval to sign the document. He did not vote at all. He feared the result may be anarchy and preferred reconciliation with Great Britain if they would back down from their oppressive tax acts. After Declaration approval he chose to sign and from that point on gave all of his support to the cause for independence.
He left public service in 1779 after accusations of misconduct only to return at the request of Congress to be the nation’s Superintendent of Finance, a role he held from 1781 to 1784. After the non-founded accusations, he had two demands that needed to be met for him to return and take the role. The first was he was to be given unilateral authority to dismiss any treasury employee. The second was he would be able to maintain his merchant relationships while in service to the country. His value was affirmed when Congress agreed to both conditions. In the same time frame he was made Agent of Marine, which gave him control of the Continental Navy.
He then set sights on doing what needed to be done to improve the finances of the developing nation that was hamstrung by debts of war. He informed Washington that he would do all he could to make sure the funding was available. His optimism was met by reluctant state governments. He was able to get all but Rhode Island to agree to taxation. Under the rules of the Articles of Confederation he needed all states to agree to his request, so the effort died.
As a result he focused his efforts on creating a national bank to help address the lack of funds. He was able to get Congress to agree in 1781 and he opened it in 1782. It was a privately owned bank, funded by subscribers, and regulated by investors. It provided a means to use the invested capital to improve access to funding government debt. He sought a national mint for a central currency, but that was postponed by Congress.
It was Robert Morris who recommended to Washington that Alexander Hamilton take the role over the treasury when he was ready to leave. It was Hamilton who went on to establish the national bank and mint that Morris promoted years before. The respect between the two was awesome, but even that was not more than the incredible intelligence and analytical abilities with regards to the Treasury and the situation with the young nation. Below is a letter written from Hamilton to Morris in 1781. It is long, detailed, and covers a myriad of subjects that interrelate with the Treasury role from the period. If you really want to understand the depth of intelligence and commitment within these founding fathers as well as many others, read it.
The valediction of the letter describes the mentoring and advising relationship well in my opinion.
“I have spun out this letter to a much greater lenght than I intended. To develope the whole connection of my ideas on the subject and place my plan in the clearest light I have indulged myself in many observations which might have been omitted. I shall not longer intrude upon you[r] patience than to assure you of the sincere sentiments of esteem with which I have the honor to be Sir Your most Obedient and humble servant
Alx Hamilton
April 30th. 81″
In his time Morris totally reorganized the treasury. He appointed tax collectors for each state who would prepare monthly financial reports and publish them in the newspapers for the public to see and keep pressure on the state governments. All of his work also helped build trust with foreign allies and those who provided products and services to the government during the war period.
Despite all of his good works for America, however, he began to make unwise decisions with his personal investment choices. While still in his treasury role in 1782 he began speculating on land purchases with John Nicholson, the comptroller of the state along with James Greenleaf, the former American consul to the Dutch Republic. They purchased millions of acres without any buyers or plans to repay loans. Over the years the debts increased while Morris also chose to build an opulent mansion for he and his family in Philly in the 1790’s. It was never completed and the cost contributed to his insolvency. The locals called it “Morris’s folly” as a representation of his downfall. His businesses and excessive land deals all began failing at the same time. It was like dominoes falling for years.
By 1798 patriot Declaration signer, Robert Morris, was sentenced to debtor’s prison. A fall from grace brought on primarily by pride, greed, and extravagance. Two years later a modified bankruptcy law was passed through the efforts of Thomas Jefferson and supporters. Morris was released and tried to return to business ventures without success as his reputation had been ruined.
In 1806 he passed away, a shell of his former self and in poverty. He is buried in the Christ Church cemetery. His wife lived until 1827 and survived on an annuity that had been provided to her through the efforts of Gouverneur Morris from a land sale.
Conclusion
Robert never went to school and was only tutored for one year, but his devotion to the education of citizens earned him the honor of having three elementary schools, a college, and a university named after him. His statue is located not only in DC at the mall, but near the Second National Bank in Philly. He and Mary’s friendship was so important to George and Martha Washington that they were frequently honored guests of theirs through the years. John Adams had the following to say about Robert’s time in the Continental Congress,
“I think he has a masterly understanding, an open temper, and an honest heart…He has vast designs in the mercantile way. And no doubt pursues mercantile ends, which are always gain, but he is an excellent member of the body.”
Again, the Robert Morris story goes far beyond what is provided here and there are many life lessons for all of us. There was his ownership of slaves for a time that led to his opposition to slavery as he aged; his contribution of ships to the Naval efforts and the named ships in his honor over the years that followed; how his enemies helped cause his debt downfall after he left public office that traced back to his work for the patriot cause in the Secret Committee; and so on.
It is a story of the highest highs and lowest lows. Of being feted by the first couple Washingtons to being drug through the muck by personal enemies and into poverty. He was praised and honored and then later in life labeled a fool by some of the very people who partially owed their independence to his personal efforts. He adhered to Christianity, yet fell to temptation outside the bounds of marriage. When faced with the result he did the honorable thing as well as when he took care of his much younger half brother when his father died. He held great position, status in society for a time, and was very successful in business; but it was not enough as he foolishly sought even more riches using huge sums of debt well beyond his capacity to repay. This caused great hardship and damaged his reputation as well as the futures of his wife and children.
None of the negative events and challenges he faced changes the truth that Robert Morris was a faithful patriot that provided great things to the Independence and establishment of our nation. Today, we proudly celebrate him as a founding father of America.
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.
With this part and the next we will follow our article on Benjamin Franklin and go deeper into the lives of other patriot founding fathers that were from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania. The Keystone name originated from its geographic location in the center of the 13 colonies as well as from its “key” contributions to the economic, political and social fabric of our young nation. Its location touches the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast Appalachia, and Great Lakes regions. As a result it has been multi-cultural and diverse since it was given in a royal land grant to William Penn in 1681.
To say it has been the site of American history in all of its glory, rage and everything in between is an understatement. Pennsylvania has been the seed planter of this great nation in Independence Hall as well as a literal and figurative battlefield from the 1700’s through today, especially with its political theatrics. Yet, when it was first settled it was considered to be a peaceful colony with settlers coexisting well with native American Indian tribes as well people from other nations such as Sweden, Germany (the Pennsylvania Dutch), and others who had major influences on the area.
Just a note at this point; I refuse to use the woke term “indigenous peoples” in reference to our native American Indian fellow citizens. It is historically inaccurate. Treaties, land grants, legal documents, Congressional records, etc. that were executed and referenced with the native American Indians in the development of our nation all state the term “Indian” in it. I have some Appalachian Cherokee blood running through my veins. I am not going to play the word games of the leftists. Right or wrong, God can judge, this world has always worked on the ancient Roman adage of, “To the victor goes the spoils.” The idgits who want to play the victims and reparations games can go pound sand.
It was into this great melting pot of people with patriot and loyalist blood in their veins that liberty was seeded. Pennsylvania’s prominent place in our nation’s history will be forever noted. I will not delve into its history as it would take too long for this series. The links below should help those who desire to know more. First there is a good bullet point style summary,
Now on to the next Declaration signer from the Keystone State.
George Clymer
George Clymer is a founder that many know very little about, yet, was one of the more important.
Clymer was born in Philly in 1739 and was orphaned at age seven. He was apprenticed to his maternal aunt and uncle. They were childless and agreed to raise, educate, and train young George into their merchant occupations. His uncle was also a friend of Benjamin Franklin. George received no formal education, but loved to read and learn. His grandfather left him some wealth in his will at age eleven. George continued working in the family business and became its accountant. He used his wealth to start his own trading business with his uncle’s blessing in 1759. When his uncle passed away he left the family business to George and with it, more wealth.
He married his wife, Elizabeth Meredith, in 1765. She was the daughter of the second wealthiest merchant in Pennsylvania. The couple went on to have nine children together with five surviving. One adult son later died in the Whiskey Rebellion. They were of the Episcopalian faith, which caused Elizabeth’s disownment by her family as they were Quakers.
George was a strong early backer of the independence movement. He served on Philadelphia’s Committee of Safety and was soon elected to serve its Common Council for six years. He was appointed a justice of the peace and later, an associate justice of the City Court despite not having a law degree. During the 1760’s he became even more involved in the patriot movement by authoring articles and pamphlets, leading a boycott of the Townshend Act, and adding his name to a 400 merchant public signing of the anti-importation stance against the Stamp Act. He was opposed by Quakers and loyalists who preferred a more conciliatory approach to Great Britain. He had great opposition to his adamant support for independence from the majority of citizens in the area, yet, they respected him so much he continue to ascend politically.
In 1773 he visited Boston in search of medical assistance for a chest ailment. While there he met and became good friends with John Quincey, an attorney who along with John Adams successfully defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials. Quincey was a big backer of Samuel Adams and John Hancock. This only encouraged Clymer more and he became an ardent supporter of the patriots in Boston.
He was very successful in his businesses in the Philly area and being popular was elected as a representative to the Second Continental Congress. After signing the Declaration of Independence he resigned in 1777. He remained there and ran his businesses during the ensuing battles in the area and the move of Congress until they could safely return. He was very generous with his wealth in his support of the military and other needs. At a crucial time during this period with funds low for the military, he and other local business leaders chartered the Pennsylvania Bank to assist in the effort. It served as a model for a national bank envisioned by Alexander Hamilton later. During the period he contributed to the war effort by serving on the Board of War and Treasury Board.
A few years later he was elected to the Philadelphia legislature where he served until he was requested to go to the southern states to increase manpower subscription for military and government service as well as soliciting funding. He returned to take part as a representative to the Constitutional Congress. In so doing he became one of only six who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution.
Clymer was a devoted Federalist and key supporter of Washington and his efforts. Washington called him into service in national financial roles as needed. He was also sent to Georgia to negotiate a treaty with the Creek and the Seminole as he had good relationships with native Indians. This resulted in peaceful relations with America and a move by the tribes away from the Spanish trading influence in Florida. He also did a mission to the Cherokees to improve relations in 1796.
He continued holding political office and running his businesses until his death in 1813. Elizabeth died two years later. They had been married 47 years. As a man of strong opinions he had an admirable way of relating to those with different perspectives that created harmony. As a result, despite his Episcopal faith and Elizabeth being disowned from her Quaker family, he was buried in a Quaker cemetery in Trenton, NJ. However, Elizabeth’s burial site is unknown and she is unlikely to have been buried by her husband.
For someone with zero formal education who had been orphaned as a child, George Clymer became a brilliant businessman, politician, judge, patriot, husband and father. He had one quote that stood out to me as it is applicable for our current times, which means it was applicable during his days over two centuries ago.
“A printer publishes a lie: for which he ought to stand in the pillory, for the people believe in and act upon it.”
Yup, fake news was influencing even back then. Fortunately, a growing majority of citizens do not fall for their garbage today. However, the sentiment is still applicable in regards to the use of the pillory against them as it might be appropriate as retribution.
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.
My schedule has been hectic, so an on-topic breather is in order. I am going with a subject that relates to the subject period in history as well as today. Since it is in the news at times, let’s discuss the filibuster. What the heck is it and why should we care?
This definition per clown provided Wiki is as good as any…
A filibuster is a political procedure in which one or more members of a legislative body prolong debate on proposed legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision. It is sometimes referred to as “talking a bill to death” or “talking out a bill”, and is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.
However, its noted origin as a procedure (not the name) appears to trace back to ancient Rome in 60 and 59 BC when Cato the Younger conducted it in opposition to Caesar’s desires in the ancient Roman Empire. The Roman Senate had a rule that all daily work had to be completed by nightfall. Cato was noted for his long winded speeches, so in two instances he got up and spoke until nightfall to foil Caesar’s plans. It worked the first time, but Caesar had a work around ready the second time as he took the measure he wanted passed to the Tribal Assembly and got it done.
There are numerous countries in which this procedure has been done in their legislative assemblies. As an example, the first time it appears to have been done in Great Britain was in Parliament in 1874. It first entered into U. S. Club Senate rules in 1806, but not used until 1837.
The filibuster was not used frequently until the 1970’s. In more recent times it has become more of a threatened use, especially since the 2010’s. It has also become watered down as a procedure to the point it is mostly only used to counter new legislation today, which is bad enough when the legislation that could pass would help We the People instead of the Uniparty and globalists.
However, the big thing is that it is not a product of the Constitution.It is in the Club Senate’s “rulebook”.
So, why does it continue to exist? Better yet, why do we need an obstruction to the usual “majority rules” method of determining the fate of legislation? We need to understand the history to know the answers to those questions, well, at least more official answers. TradeBait’s response that follows is probably a bit less tactful. 😂
To cut to the chase It is just another contrived rule that We the People had no voice in determiningits existence and use. As posted in previous Dailies they do the same garbage in the judiciary. They build in rules of engagement, practices, procedural hoops, and standing that are not enumerated or codified into law by the legislature. They are inserted at the discretion of the involved parties and frequently used as weapons to achieve goals in conflict with the intent of the Constitution, laws, and will of We the People. They grant permissions to positions and bodies to do so that have never been legally authorized by our system of government. They then hide behind the rules they create.
The Senate politicians sell filibuster presence as a tool to prevent unthrottled and dangerous control by legislators of the “political process” that could abuse citizen voters. They use fear porn induced warnings in serious tones of voice to make their points. Sometimes, I am convinced the real boogeyman or Sasquatch will run out from behind them to threaten us all.
One thing is true, the threat of the use of this tool has kept even a unified House, Senate and POTUS from achieving their fake media described scary agendas despite having received control from the popular vote. How convenient that the GOP or Dems cannot seem to get that important piece of legislation across the finish line that benefits We the People more than the politicians and globalists. With it available the Uniparty continues its reign.
Instead, we get Obamacare and such, right McShame? Oh yeah, you are no longer here to undercut the will of We the People. 👍 But just as a reminder, if Harry Reid followed by Turtle did not permit its nuking in regard to confirmations; PDT would have never received approval for any judges, SCOTUS justices, or cabinet selections. Who knew in advance we would thank two Uniparty henchmen for their efforts to release us from that bondage one day? Of course, doing so was met with wailing and gnashing of teeth by media and the Uniparty faithful. Much fear porn was broadcast and now we know why. SCOTUS leaned back toward the right over time and some honest judges were added to the federal court rosters.
In Club Senate the filibuster is still a game maneuver the majority can also use to not move forward with popular legislation that they would ordinarily have the votes to pass, especially with the Uniparty in control. Instead they can hide behind the perceived threat of a filibuster. Rarely do filibusters actually happen, the vast majority of the time their use is just threatened or “understood” to be possible. All of it is theater to keep the public fooled and sidetracked, just like the non-election elections.
There is no point in addressing cloture to end debate. The majority still needs 60 votes to invoke it to end the show. In the political environment of today, rarely would there be any Dems willing to join with the GOP to do so. That makes it easy for GOP Senators to grandstand and gaslight the public on their “conservative” values and standing “with” POTUS Trump against the big, bad Dems.
Conditions Today
Let’s take a look at what MTG thinks of the Club Senate and the filibuster.
If you are an optimist you will respond to this situation with a desire to get rid of it so you can get done what needs to be done. If you are a pessimist you want to keep the filibuster as a tool to keep the leftists from ruining the country should they return to power. However, that may turn out to be a less than accurate analysis if indeed, POTUS Trump and patriots are cleaning the election system and taking back control of the federal government swamp.
Do you really believe the Democrat Party has over 70 million real life voters? If you do, you will be more likely to want to retain the filibuster. If you don’t, you will be more likely to want it terminated providing the election system is cleaned up and fair for all voters.
Next, do you believe in DOGE and their efforts or not? I did not say Elon, I said DOGE. Their efforts are helping to clean the system along with ICE and Homeland Security. Add in the Civil Rights division of the DOJ which is now playing hardball as you saw in Part 2. Evidence is being introduced into the courts on hacking election systems, fraudulent ballot harvesting, and fraudulent voter registration activities. Lies are being exposed that claimed no internet connectivity, when in fact the voting machines were connected. More legal actions are underway on clamping down on ID requirements as well as illegals having access to voter registrations.
I don’t believe the Dems have the votes even if it not totally cleaned yet. My gut says they have less than 50 million. They have no message, no inspiring leaders, no bench to sway the majority of the eligible voters. The longer that America First MAGA can dominate the more the judiciary will become Constitutionalist in nature. That realization is contingent on the current administration and leadership knowing that the Democrat Party does not now have or will have anywhere near the votes they manufactured in 2020 with the election steal.
PDT suggested doing away with the filibuster at least a dozen times in his first term. Contrast that viewpoint with that of a Uniparty Senator. From a 9/26/24 USA Today article on the subject comes this quote, “The day Republicans vote to nuke the filibuster is the day I walk out the door,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who noted that the party repeatedly resisted Trump’s calls to end the filibuster for legislation while he was president.
Sounds like a really good reason for it to be nuked to me, Thommy Turd.
That leads this author to suggest that it is time to kill the filibuster dead as a doornail. Just the threat of its use stops good legislation that We the People support. With its termination the remaining RINO’s will have to openly state their positions for or against a measure – no more hiding. We the People can then primary them out and replace with America First.
If we truly want to end the RINO species, we have to eliminate their habitat. Thommy Turd told everybody where he hides. Remove the ability to hide and openly expose them. Playing defense all the time plays into the Uniparty’s hands. If we go on offense on this, they will either fight to survive or run away scared. We the People then know where they stand and what to do.
However, none of that is the primary reason to terminate the use of the filibuster. The primary reason to get rid of it is the same as with the other contrived rules, procedures and practices in every area of government. There is no provision for it in the Constitution. Assuming honest elections, the threat and the use of it circumvents the will of We the People.
Remember what Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and a handful of other revered founding fathers wanted to do to circumvent the will of We the People when the Constitution was constructed? They were fearful of We the People and the popular vote as it had been a major problem to the new nation due to States’ Rights and its inability to pay military pensions. Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and a large majority of founders they did not get what they wanted. The popular vote was supported in the end result. However, that did not stop those at our nation’s founding that did not like that result. Instead, less than 20 years later, the pro-filibuster crowd in Club Senate began making rules that worked around the issue just a Caesar’s opponents did with the ancient Roman Senate.
The specific problems from our founders’ days no longer exist. In my opinion, it is time for We the People to go boldly into the Golden Age and terminate the filibuster.
Or we can continue looking around for the boogeyman and Sasquatch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
