Judge Bean
Senior Member
Misrule and Criminal Rule of America
?in other countries, sir, unhappily for mankind, the history of their respective revolutions have been written in blood; and it is in this only that any great or important change in our political situation, has been effected, without publick commotions?When we shall have adopted the Constitution before us, we shall have in this article an adequate provision for all the purposes of political reformation. If in the course of its operation, this government shall appear to be too severe, here are the means by which this severity may be attempered and corrected?
Charles Jarvis
The original American government saw in its charter document the means for lawful revolution, to avoid bloodshed as the sole means of reform, correction, and amendment. The law remains in effect as written.
The function of the Senate and the House is primarily now one of direct, disingenuous payment and reward. The Congress is now a large market, the law a commodity, the prices set by supply and demand. No one can win an election, let alone retain office, without an enormous financial transaction.
Whereas the presidential candidate must supplement a financial fortune with broad appeal to voters overall, the Senate or Congressional candidate need only amass the funding. The constituency is utterly at the mercy of the needs and costs of business conducted just out of earshot, and ?while the legislature is in session, no one is safe.?
In recent modern history, it was a political commonplace that Senators worked to gain advantages for their home States, landing enormous military business or otherwise channeling an inordinate share of benefits to their own constituencies. Nowadays, Senators are their own bailiwicks, maneuvering lobbyists and favors to obtain more than their share of enrichment.
Members of Congress now represent only themselves. Every election is a lie. The people have no voice within the intricate network of influence and cashflow. Mr. Smith has no seat in the Senate. The Constitution has no force in either the spirit or the letter of its law.
The Supreme Court of the United States over the past 30 years, and especially under the prolific guidance of its Chief Justice, who deems himself a kind of high military officer, will side predictably with the government nearly always, when the controversy lies between it and the people; and nearly always against it when it lies between corporate interests and the government. When a matter of dispute between the districts forces the Court to interpret Constitutional law in an uncomfortable way, its way unclear between competing and powerful interest, it will reject the case and avoid any decision whatever.
In the course of only a very few terms, it has recently taken this cowardly escape on issues of high importance in, e.g., the Silveira and Padilla cases, jeopardizing the Bill of Rights.
It has upheld onerous life terms for petty crimes, consistently worked to reduce personal rights, validated the expansion of executive powers and secrecy, loosened its appearance of impartiality, and refused or failed to overturn the pernicious Korematsu case, instead citing it as authority for the occasional necessity of official racism.
The Chief Justice has written books apparently predicting what his decisions would be regarding issues of grave Constitutional weight. The presidents have been successful in loading the panel with individuals representing polarized viewpoints, further degrading the political immunities of the judiciary. The only remedy for these entrenched abuses is complete replacement of the Court, since we can no longer look to it for teaching us how to preserve our rights.
Complete replacement of those in power is in fact the only recourse now for the whole government if the people are to have their due, which is their justice, which is their birthright. They know they have been misled. Now it must end.
?in other countries, sir, unhappily for mankind, the history of their respective revolutions have been written in blood; and it is in this only that any great or important change in our political situation, has been effected, without publick commotions?When we shall have adopted the Constitution before us, we shall have in this article an adequate provision for all the purposes of political reformation. If in the course of its operation, this government shall appear to be too severe, here are the means by which this severity may be attempered and corrected?
Charles Jarvis
The original American government saw in its charter document the means for lawful revolution, to avoid bloodshed as the sole means of reform, correction, and amendment. The law remains in effect as written.
The function of the Senate and the House is primarily now one of direct, disingenuous payment and reward. The Congress is now a large market, the law a commodity, the prices set by supply and demand. No one can win an election, let alone retain office, without an enormous financial transaction.
Whereas the presidential candidate must supplement a financial fortune with broad appeal to voters overall, the Senate or Congressional candidate need only amass the funding. The constituency is utterly at the mercy of the needs and costs of business conducted just out of earshot, and ?while the legislature is in session, no one is safe.?
In recent modern history, it was a political commonplace that Senators worked to gain advantages for their home States, landing enormous military business or otherwise channeling an inordinate share of benefits to their own constituencies. Nowadays, Senators are their own bailiwicks, maneuvering lobbyists and favors to obtain more than their share of enrichment.
Members of Congress now represent only themselves. Every election is a lie. The people have no voice within the intricate network of influence and cashflow. Mr. Smith has no seat in the Senate. The Constitution has no force in either the spirit or the letter of its law.
The Supreme Court of the United States over the past 30 years, and especially under the prolific guidance of its Chief Justice, who deems himself a kind of high military officer, will side predictably with the government nearly always, when the controversy lies between it and the people; and nearly always against it when it lies between corporate interests and the government. When a matter of dispute between the districts forces the Court to interpret Constitutional law in an uncomfortable way, its way unclear between competing and powerful interest, it will reject the case and avoid any decision whatever.
In the course of only a very few terms, it has recently taken this cowardly escape on issues of high importance in, e.g., the Silveira and Padilla cases, jeopardizing the Bill of Rights.
It has upheld onerous life terms for petty crimes, consistently worked to reduce personal rights, validated the expansion of executive powers and secrecy, loosened its appearance of impartiality, and refused or failed to overturn the pernicious Korematsu case, instead citing it as authority for the occasional necessity of official racism.
The Chief Justice has written books apparently predicting what his decisions would be regarding issues of grave Constitutional weight. The presidents have been successful in loading the panel with individuals representing polarized viewpoints, further degrading the political immunities of the judiciary. The only remedy for these entrenched abuses is complete replacement of the Court, since we can no longer look to it for teaching us how to preserve our rights.
Complete replacement of those in power is in fact the only recourse now for the whole government if the people are to have their due, which is their justice, which is their birthright. They know they have been misled. Now it must end.
