Handouts

An Outline of the Federalist Papers

Copy of the Bill of Rights

Content

1. The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States are known as the Bill of Rights.  They included: 1- separation of church and state, 2 – the right to have a state militia and individual ownership of weapons, 3 – the right to refuse quartering to troops, 4 – the right to require a search warrant, 5-the right to due legal process, Eminent Domain (property rights), and self-incrimination, 6-the right to a prompt trial, 7- right to a jury, 8 – right to bail, 9 – the right for the Constitution to be amended, 10 – the right of the states to reserve powers not listed by the federal government.

1. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868,  was added to the Bill of Rights to give citizens due process in both the federal and state arenas.

1. Double jeopardy was being tried twice for the same crime.  It was prohibited by the Bill of Rights.

1. Checks and Balances within the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches were not primarily affected by the Bill of Rights.

1. Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of Congress in both Houses or when 2/3 of the state legislatures request Congress to call a Constitutional Convention.

1. Ratification of an amendment must be done by at least ¾ of the state legislatures or a majority vote in ¾ of the state conventions called to vote on the amendment.

Terms to Define and Learn

Ratification

Amendment

Majority

Double Jeopardy

Fourteenth Amendment

Eminent Domain

Bill of Rights

State Militia

Critical Question Essay

Discuss how amendments to the Constitution are made.  Include all the steps in the process and why getting them accomplished would be difficult in most instances.

Internet Resources for this Lesson

www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights.html

www.davidamayassociates.com/id17.htm

Lesson – The Executive and Judicial Branches

Handouts

Chart of the Executive Branch

Chart of the Supreme Court Procedures

Content

1. The powers of the Executive Branch implied by the Constitution are:  military treaties, appointments, power over executive departments, pardon and reprieve and filling vacancies.

1. Other duties performed by the President are:  the State of the Union Address, calling special sessions of Congress, veto power, receiving ambassadors and execution of the law.

1. The President has a four-year term determined by the Electoral College and must take the oath of office.

1. The President may be liable to impeachment and removal from office for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

1. The Office of the Presidency shall be limited to two terms.

1. The Vice-President shall take over the duties of the President if he becomes disabled or otherwise indisposed.

1. There are two basic routes to the Supreme Court; the State Route, which requires a case in a state trial court, then an appeals court, and then the highest court within a state.  The other route is the Federal Route in which the case is tried in one of the Federal District Courts, then in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and finally the Supreme Court.

Terms to Define and Learn

Supreme Court

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Federal District Court

Federal Route

State Route

Impeachment

State trial court

State appeals court

State Supreme Court

Critical Question Essay

You are a convict on death row.  How would you try and take your case to the Supreme Court?  Discuss each level of your appeal.

Internet resources for this Lesson

www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

Image via Wikipedia

What makes a person a traitor? Is it defying the country? Raising arms against the government?  Is it someone who betrays the principles of their countries founding fathers? or is it people who make a claim that defending the government and not the principles, is loyalty?  I ask you the reader: what do you consider an act of treason?

To me an act of treason is when the leaders and it’s followers abandon reason and common sense to promote their best interests.

What Emperor Bush, his servant Darth Cheney and War Minister Rumsfeld is such an act.  They went ahead with the invasion of Iraq with Congressional approval and those that voted for them considered it UN-American  not to attack Iraq.

What do they know of being an American when they haven’t read the constitution?

If they had read the Constitution, they would know that Article One, Section Eight of the constitution clearly says that Congress has the power to declare war, not the office of the President.

Yet ever since Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney’s ascension to the throne, they have chosen not to go to congress for any approval and those in congress choose not to defy them out of loyalty to the party.  Even with Bush and Cheney out of office, the office of the President continues to disregard the constitution not just when it comes to war, but civil liberties.

Even after 9/11 and controversy of Abu Ghraib, their still is no regard for the 8th and 4th amendment, both have been disregarded in the so-called “war on terror” and “national security”.  We’ve seen through the lies and we know for a fact that what Congress, the Senate, the House and the office of the President are ones who have committed acts of treason against the United States and it’s people.

So I ask you, the reader again: What is treason?

http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2011/03/american-treason.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17231.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

     In his article, “Government appeals judge’s health care ruling”, Greg Bluestein reported that the US government is trying to support Obama’s Socialist Healthcare agenda by appealing a ruling that negated the healthcare scheme. 

     According to Bluestein, the Justice Department (JD) defended the government’s plan to penalize people through taxes for NOT purchasing socialized health care.  The JD stated falsely that this is “constitutional” because Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

     In actuality, this is a half-truth based on a serious oversight about the US Constitution.  The JD overlooks that the Constitution’s fundamental purpose is to ensure government protects the people’s individual rights from being violated—by either street criminals or government workers who abuse their power. 

     Although the Constitution does allow for some federal regulation of interstate commerce, it is not at the expense of individual rights.  That is because the US Constitution is fundamentally based on the supremacy of individual rights—which conditions every other stipulation in the Founding documents.  That means any application of the “commerce” stipulation has to be consistent with the protection of individual rights.

     Assuming for the sake of argument that “regulating interstate commerce” accurately describes the forcing of citizens’ into buying socialized healthcare, the “commerce” clause will only violate individual rights.  What is violated, in this case, is a citizen’s right to make his own judgment call in determining if he needs a healthcare policy or which one to buy.  Because of its violation of this right, the “commerce” clause does not constitutionally apply to the buying of socialized health policies. 

     In reality, “regulating interstate commerce” does not accurately apply to forcing citizens into buying (or selling) any kind of policy—as the JD would have you believe.  Instead, the federal regulation of interstate commerce only refers to regulating the actual transportation of goods.  This results from a business deal that both parties have already voluntarily agreed to.  But when we discuss government coercing both sides into the business agreement in the first place, that is different.  Now, we are discussing the coercion of employer and “healthcare buyer” into an involuntary business deal (not the regulation of the commerce that results).

     Coercing purchase of socialized healthcare gives rise to the deeper issue of the injustice of governmental force against law-abiding citizens.  Because the government can imprison us without our consent, it’s enforcement of constitutional or unconstitutional laws is coercive.  When our government coerces law-abiding citizens into buying socialized healthcare, it unjustly violates the right of people to make personal choices regarding their own health.  This right to make personal decisions about one’s health results from the “…right to life…liberty…” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. 

     Further, the ONLY justification for government coercion is to forcibly prevent thugs from violating our individual rights.  This protection of rights is the government’s prime Constitutional purpose.

     In essence, government coercion of citizens (not criminals) is the same act as a thug on the street pointing a gun at you and forcing you to do things you do not want to do.  Whether committed by government or by street thugs, the victim’s rights are violated.    

     Because of the potential violation of our rights, we must make our representatives realize that government officials do not have a right to decide for us if we should buy a (socialized) health care policy.  People’s health considerations relate SOLELY to individual citizens and the government does not own their bodies.  Consequently, only individual citizens, not legislators, have a right to decide if they will buy health care policies.

     The attempt by government to “force-feed” citizens socialized healthcare proves that there are officials who have no respect for our individual rights and a zero understanding of the US Constitution.  Hence, our officials are hypocrites for attempting adoption of Socialist policies while being responsible for upholding the US Constitution. 

     This hypocrisy of forcing Socialist healthcare on people motivates the majority of Americans to join the Tea Parties.  Only time will tell if Americans are going to make successful political efforts to stop our government from contradicting our constitutional rights.    

So imagine my surprise this morning when I read of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that was originally written in 1923 and was not passed to the US Congress until 1972. To give the US Congress their due they did allow it to pass both houses but it failed to gain its ratification in time and the deadline of June 30th 1982 passed so the proposal was dropped.

I thought to my self well surely in the almost 30 years since this has passed it would have gone through again and in this day and age of all things being equal it would have passed by now. Well, I was wrong it has not gone through and so what could it be that is taking so long to get passed into being a part of the US Constitution?

It is Equal Rights for Women, how I ask can a country as forward thinking as the good old US of A not give equality to about 50% of its population?

In 1979 at the General Assembly of the United Nations the ‘Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women’, otherwise known as CEDAW was adopted and this international bill of rights for women came into being on the 3rd of September 1981. Of the 192 member states of the United Nations only seven have not signed it. They are Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Iran, Tonga, Sudan and the United States.

     Niesse went on to quote Donalyn Dela Cruz, a spokeswoman for the aforementioned governor, as saying that people who continue to question Obama’s birth origins are “conspirators”.  I say that’s a false description.  In actuality, people who question Obama’s birth origins are rational, critical thinkers who do not conform to unproven assertions made by political spokespersons.

     Labeling such critical thinking as “conspiratorial” does not logically disprove the very plausible possibility of Obama’s foreign birth.  So let’s consider the facts.  The first one derived from Niesse’s article is that Obama’s lack of consent prevents the political or public viewing of his birth certificate.  Without such a viewing, the possibility of Obama’s foreign birth remains.

     Obama’s lack of honesty on the subject makes this possibility more plausible.  If Obama was honest (and responsible as a public servant of the people), he would make his birth certificate public and show the necessary parties.  Then he’d tell American audiences at his next speech, “Here’s my birth certificate saying I was born in Hawaii.  Now shut up and let me run this country!”  Then, not even the most vehement Obama critic would be able to call his birth origins into question.  But Obama has not done any of this.  He’s allowed his birth certificate to remain confidential.  That means he has something to hide. 

     If Obama has something to hide about his birth origins then it must be because his certificate shows he was foreign-born.  And alas! His tenure as US president is unconstitutional.  In that case, he would have to be impeached.  This is the most likely explanation for Obama’s unwillingness to reveal his birth certificate.  Hence, Obama’s dishonesty makes a possible foreign birth more likely. 

     Obama’s fear of being impeached if his certificate is revealed also explains why Obama had not actively supported Democrat Governor Ambercrombie in his attempts to prove Obama’s supposedly Hawaiian birth.

     To be fair, Niesse paraphrased Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo’s assertion that Obama’s name is listed alphabetically on a roster of people born in Hawaii.  This, however, does not constitute proof.  For one thing, Okubo is merely making a claim that has not been scrutinized and verified by an investigative or legal body.  So we have only Okubo’s word that the list is ONLY for those born in Hawaii (or that President Obama’s name is really on the list).  Rationality demands more than blind faith in her say-so. 

     Even Okubo detracts from her assertion by saying the listed Obama name is only, “an indication” (not proof–of a Hawaiian birth) and that, “The index is just to say who has their records within the department.”  That suggests a Hawaiian resident can still have “their records within the department” without being born there.  Hence, it only “indicates”, not proves, Obama was born in Hawaii.  Because of Okubo’s contradictory statements, we still have no proof of Obama’s Hawaiian birth.

     It’s also possible that Obama’s name is on the list due to having been moved to Hawaii as an infant by his family.  The list could just be a list of all long-term Hawaii residents.

     Investigators should check these supposedly public records out and determine if a) the list really–and only–is for people born in Hawaii, b) if Obama’s name is really on there—as Okubo claims and c) if the listed “Obama” name belongs to President Obama or to another person with the same name.  Then, an investigator would have to show that there was no falsification of documents (also a real possibility).  But the real proof is the birth certificate Obama does not want to show the American people.  Let’s continue holding our politicians accountable.      

            The 17th Amendment is good because it removed much of the rampant corruption in the US political system.  Members of the state legislature no longer held much sway over, nor received bribes from members of Congress.  With power no longer consolidated into the hands of a few political elites, a much larger voice of the American public was heard.  This is very important in a country where new ideas and political voices are being expressed every day.  This allows for a more current political view expressed through the election of a senator, rather than the most corrupt, gaining the seat.

            However, many problems may arise from direct election.  The American people are very indecisive, and do not follow political news as closely as needed to make an educated decision.  Through fickleness, the American public may elect a Senator out of spite against the challenger, making the political scene in Washington worse.  Because the American people do not pay much attention to political news except what is seen on television, a false view of a candidate may be presented.  Without all the facts, people might fall victim to mud slinging, and résumé padding.

            In the past, state lawmakers during election years accepted large bribes from the candidates running for a seat in Congress.  However, today’s society makes corruption look like nothing in comparison.  With the advent of the television, most votes are gained through advertisements; this means whoever has the most capital can win more votes.  Incumbents tend to have more money to use in elections because of the funds saved from the previous elections.  This extra money allows for more ads, making it nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent.

            If the 17th Amendment were to be repealed and state senators chose national representatives the average citizen would pay more attention to local elections and politics.  The political impact of repealing the 17th Amendment would be huge.  Senatorial candidates would spend much less political energy coercing people into voting for them because the state senators, who may pay attention to national politics, would already know how the Senator votes. 

            There is no correct approach; both are needed in order to make a more perfect system.  A system involving candidates running to become the Democratic or Republican nomination, similar to primaries, then having the state senate choose the next senator would be best.  This system would incorporate the voice of the people, as well as the political knowledge of the state legislature.

The Constitutional phrase “To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization” (1.8.4) means that Congress has the power to set immigration standards for the United States.  States however can enforce this in a manner of their choosing.

The Supremacy Clause states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land” (6.2); this means, on federal issues the federal government can pass laws that supersede any state law.  The Arizona law is not unconstitutional under the supremacy clause because the statute did not change the standards of immigration, only the manner of enforcement.   However, if the federal government wanted, it could override Arizona’s decision on how the immigration laws can be enforced by passing federal laws.

If immigration was not federally controlled, and states were permitted to pass their own statutes, a possible result would be lack of field workers.  Currently, many illegal immigrants refuse to go to Arizona and harvest crops because of the new laws.  Many of theses crops will wilt in the fields because the average American citizen does not want to do manual labor. 

Civil unrest might result from state immigration laws.  People living lawfully in one state with a green card might not be allowed in another state with different immigration laws.  Traveling between states would become similar going to a foreign country. 

If an individual state regulates immigration on a stricter level then other states, the states with the lax immigration laws would become home to many more aliens which could plane an unnecessary strain on a single state’s economy.  This strain could cause an economic collapse, similar to what happened in Arizona, resulting in more, similar laws.

Image via Wikipedia

Since the attack on the World Trade Center in September 11, 2001 there has been an increase in police brutality across the United States. (See related article at USAToday.com.) Police departments are becoming increasingly militarized. Combat fatigued veterans, hardened by the realities of war, are returning from abroad and joining the ranks of the police. As police departments become increasingly corrupt, it becomes more difficult for them to recruit and retain decent people to wear their uniforms.

Homeland Security and Federal law enforcement agencies have been working closely with local police departments, as mentioned in this article from Canadian Free Press and elsewhere. This collusion has led to untold violations of human rights across the nation and the numbers are increasing. The victims are often silenced by threats, both direct and implied, particularly when they have no evidence of the terrible crimes committed against them, as is most often the case.

Those who live through police brutality and live to tell the tale are survivors. The rest become statistics and the subject of an overwhelming number of police brutality stories across the internet. The web has become a forum for people who have no other means to communicate what has happened to them or those they love at the hands of brutal police.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that police brutality cases are not just “isolated incidents” involving “a few bad apples.” As Frank Serpico tried to tell everyone, (Please, see CNN article, of September 3, 1997, “Serpico Resurrects His Decades-old Criticism of NYPD.”) organizations are corrupt from the top down. And, we see it again and again with remarkable cover ups of heinous crimes perpetrated by police across the country in which the perpetrators are promoted and the heads of departments go to great lengths to conceal officers crimes. These uniformed robbers, rapists, murderers and human traffickers flourish in their illegal activities while hiding behind their badges.

They cloak themselves in the public’s incredulousness, as well. Ordinary people do not want to believe that such nefarious crimes are being committed by the people they believe they are paying to protect them. The public’s fear is the curtain behind which so many villainous acts are committed. But, that curtain is being drawn back by numerous sites around the web.

One brave former cop in Austin, Texas has created an online reality show called KopBusters, at www.kopbusters.com, for the purpose of catching corrupt cops in the act. As a former cop the founder and CEO, Barry Cooper, understands the mentality of the police and uses their own dirty tricks against them. It was initially established to help free a young woman who is serving a seven year sentence for a crime she didn’t commit. They set out to prove that she was set up by police who had an informant plant drugs in her home.

The website www.copwatch.com, encourages citizens to report police brutality incidents. It has an extensive database of charges filed against police and articles about police abuses.

The following website, http://www.policecrimes.com, features a growing number of articles and videos on the subject of police brutality. It also offers advice for dealing with police officers.

Although, much of the information about dealing with police pertains to those police who still have some sense that they are bound by laws. Increasingly, there are cases where police are simply attacking and murdering innocent people. Clearly, no negotiation is possible in instances where you are attacked from behind by unidentified, gun-wielding maniacs, regardless of whether they are sporting a badge or not. An example of this kind of police attack is the attempted murder of Robbie Tolan on his porch in Bellaire, Texas in January of 2009. Tolan was shot in the back for no reason, whatsoever. The officer involved did not seem to know the victim and claims that he thought he was driving a stolen vehicle. He wasn’t. This story has been featured on HBO and CNN, please see this website for more details of this shocking police crime: http://binside.typepad.com/binside_tv/robbie_tolan/

Police murders are not rare; it is only rare when they get caught. Few murders of any kind are captured on film, but the New Year’s Eve public, very methodical execution of Oscar Grant by Officer Johannes Mehserle in California in 2009 is an exception. Numerous bystanders had their cell phone cameras ready as Grant begged for his life before being shot in the back (a favorite tactic of the police). Even though numerous videos of the murder were caught on tape and posted on www.youtube.com, the department was slow to arrest the killer and his accomplices, the people who aided Mehserle in this murder on film, have yet to be indicted.

The reckless use of tasers among police is an increasing concern. They can be deadly to healthy people and they are clearly dangerous to the health of anyone or who has heart problems. But, on a whim the police will taser children, the elderly, pregnant women and anyone else. Young, healthy, vibrant men have died after being tasered by police. The instances are so numerous that it would be impossible to document all of them in this article.

Despite the risks, police departments insist on using tasers. It seems that they enjoy the mayhem; they enjoy committing the murder of innocents, unchecked. After the death of a Latino man who was tasered by police, the police responded by ordering even more of these execution devices. No one should need to be reminded that police are not judges, jury and executioner rolled up into one. In Houston 2/3 of the people murdered by police are not under arrest for anything and police attacks of innocent people – just because! – are on the rise. The reason that the police departments repeatedly give for using tasers is that they “save lives.” Yet, they have been the cause of, at least, several hundred unncessary deaths in the U.S. since 2001.

A number of articles about police using tasers to kill innocent people can be found at Ken Adachi’s site, www.educate-yourself.org. Most shocking is numerous videos of police tasering innocent people, clearly enjoying the pain that they are inflicting. An example is this video taken from the dash camera of an officer repeatedly tasering a handcuffed. and particularly attractive, young woman. Warning: This is an extremely disturbing video. It should be remembered that citizens have the right to resist unlawful arrests and any arrest involving police brutality is an unlawful one. This woman is lucky she is alive. As usual, the police department took no initiative against this violent criminal on their own; it was only after the media got wind of the incident that the officer involved was even placed on leave.

This all begs the question: Do police departments create sociopaths or do they just attract them? It is a particular variety of deviance, sexual sadism, that is displayed in numerous videos involving the brutalization of women (and some men). Sexual sadists receive a sexual thrill from terrorizing and brutalizing their victims; they perversely delight in the control that they have over them. This perverse delight is illustrated in numerous video accounts widely distributed on the internet. Why are so many sexual sadists wearing uniforms? Most likely they are attracted to the power and authority that their positions endow them with.

When one begins to examine the history of the United States and our Constitution, the question arises: Are police departments legal? Moreover, are they really necessary or desirable in a free republic. Police brutality, a term which doesn’t really cover the reality of police crimes against innocents – its depth and breadth, which is one of the worst forms of tyranny across this nation – is the norm and not the exception.

People must wake up to this reality. They must overcome their cognitive dissonance and realize that the police have never existed to protect and serve the public. The exist to protect and serve their masters, the elite members of government. It has been that way since the inception of the first police departments in the U.S. The Boston Police Department, an inherently racist organization, existed to quell riots between new immigrants from Ireland and Italy. The New York Police Department was created to protect wealthy Manhattanites from the perceived dangers of immigrants that they perceived as rabble.

Any good that police do is completely overshadowed by their unspeakable crimes; crimes which are not usually committed on camera, but in the shadows.

The police have never served citizens and never will. History should be reviewed and the roles of the police should be put into their proper perspective. They must be brought out of the shadows and a brighter light must be shined on their crimes. Governance must be returned to the good citizens of the United States of America.

For further research:

The historical brutality of the Los Angeles Police Department is featured in the movie “The Changeling,” starring Angelina Jolie.

The true story of Frank Serpico is featured in the movie, “Serpico,” starring Al Pacino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality

Frank Serpico’s website: http://www.frankserpico.com/

ACLU: http://www.aclu.com/

http://www.louisvillepeace.org/CAPA/police_abuse.html

http://www.policeabuse.com/

No More Tasers: http://nomoretasers.com/

Works Cited

“Police Brutality Cases on the Rise Since 9/11.” USA Today. Kevin Johnson. December 18, 2007. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm

“Controversy: Mercenaries Training US Local Police Officers,” Canadian Free Press. Jim Kouri. April 8, 2008. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2549

“Serpico Resurrects His Decades Old Criticism of NYPD.” CNN. September 23, 1997.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/23/serpico.brutality/