Category Archives: Democratic-Republican Party

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Chief Justice John Roberts is rapidly becoming my least favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice in history.  First, in 2007, the debut innovation of “the Roberts Court” was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, then a followup kick in the face of freedom under the name of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and now this week (on Monday, June 25, 2012) Arizona v. United States (Arizona v US) and, today Thursday, June 28, 2012, yet another day that will live in infamy: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. KAREN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al v SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH).

It’s been a really bad week for the Constitution and for the American people, and a very good day for  Obama’s flourishing Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  Oh yes, and what a nice present for Hillary Clinton as she celebrates lasting longer as U.S. Secretary of State than any other of the 96 individuals to hold that office—and we were all sure she was just a joke back in the early 1990s when she was pushing a National Health Care System which looked an awful lot like what we’ve got now with Obamacare.

First with regard to Arizona v. US: The expansion of the American Police State seems never-ending, as the late great Strom Thurmond’s States-Rights Democratic Party Platform very accurately predicted in 1948.   The great triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States over the past 64 years is quite simply this: all oppressive acts of government, so long as they are applied equally to White people as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all others without Racial, and only with Economic and Political, Prejudice, will be upheld.  But try asserting any constitutional right other than your right to be on an equal footing with all other slaves, and man YOU ARE DEAD MEAT!!!!  States Rights got a minor boost last year when an individual right to sue under the Tenth Amendment was recognized, but this year the 162 year trend towards the complete suppression of State Sovereignty marches forward unabated….

The main issue regarding Arizona’s immigration statutes was whether the individual states of the Union have any right to make more restrictive laws regarding residence and citizenship than the United States as a whole.  Under the expressly anti-States’ Rights 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said NO.  But, if the Arizona police want to go around harassing people on the highways, they are free to do so, so long as they are willing to say they suspect that every blonde-haired & blue-eyed caucasian must have recently entered illegally from Sweden or Norway perhaps….  The Supreme Court, these days, never seems to miss an opportunity to enhance the power of the police to oppress the population at large.

With regard to the “Obamacare” case, I can only say I’m NOT even as surprised by this result as I was not by the result in the Arizona immigration opinion.  Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt gave up his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, there is no infringement on the economic liberty and personal choices of the American people which the Supreme Court finds too trivial to be worthy of Federal Enforcement.  The only comment-worthy deviation from predictions was that Chief Justice John Roberts in this case came up with the novel notion that the U.S. government can tax anything and anyone it wants to for any reason, including non-compliance with a mandatory insurance purchase requirement, and that this punitive tax or purchase choice makes it all “OK.”

Of all the commentary and punditry that came out on Thursday after the decision, two of the most “spot on” that I saw were first) the article describing John Roberts’ “Liberal Apotheosis”:

After Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts became a minor deity to some liberals for voting to save Obamacare. But just days before Roberts’ apotheosis, liberals lamented that the “conservative” Supreme Court was taking America down a dangerous path.  (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-ruling-liberal-apotheosis-john-roberts-035207618.html)

The “Liberal Apotheosis” of John Roberts?  “Apotheosis” of course, means transformation into a god—and what did the pagan gods of Olympia or Pharaonic Egypt do?  Exactly what any god can do:  A “god” can work Miracles,  first Make and then Bend the all Rules, Change the Natural Order of Things….   I suppose my own religious notions, such as they are, posit an unchanging God defined by the phrase from the old BCP: “as it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end amen” which seems curiously absent from most Episcopal services these days.   I equate God with Nature, and while I believe rather fervently in Evolution, I believe Evolution operates according to certain utterly unchanging rules, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which even the discovery of man’s ability intentionally to split or fuse atoms could never quite change.

And yet the Godlike role of the Supreme Court in making and bending rules seems more than a bit undemocratic.   So that is the second part of the analysis we need to perform today: Was Roberts’ decision to side with Obamacare entirely a matter of political strategy?

 The American Concept of Constitutional Judicial Review predates Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court’s decision Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 412 (February 1, 1793)(Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, February 1 1793triggered the (I would now say very unfortunate) move to enact the 11th Amendment during the First Term of the Presidency of George Washington.  But Chief Justice Marshall’s notions of judicial review shaped the Court, much to his cousin Thomas Jefferson’s dismay and disgust.   I recall hearing the story of Marbury v. Madison and judicial review in my Freshman year at Tulane, from Professor Jean Danielson in Political Science H103, where I met my long-time college years best friend John K. Naland, now a long-time veteran of the U.S. State Department.  Professor Danielson explained the political genius of Marbury v. Madison was that it empowered the Court while respecting the political boundaries of the time.  Chief Justice Marshall knew that, as President Adams’ last major appointee, any decision made in favor of the appointment of Adams’ minor “midnight judges” including William Marbury would simply be ignored by the new Democratic-Republican administration of Jefferson (with James Madison as secretary of state and the defendant in the case) as an act of political partisanship on the part of a Federalist appointee favoring Federalist appointees.  On the other hand, to uphold Secretary of State Madison’s power to refuse to honor the appointments made by President Adams would seem like craven capitulation without legal or moral integrity.  So, in a result which no one ever anticipated, Chief Justice John Marshall carefully reasoned and soundly declared the statute authorizing the appointment of Magistrates in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional act in excess of Congress’ power under the Constitution—and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter of the United States was established forever—or, at least, for a long time.

That particular “long time” ended in 1936, which, as a another commentator/pundit on the Obamacare decision pointed out, was the last time in history that the United States Supreme Court overturned a major piece of Congressional legislation as Unconstitutional.    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President was unlike anything the United States had ever since, including George Washington’s First Term.   In Washington’s First Term, the constant debate in Congress was whether the Federal Government had power under the Constitution to do much of anything at all.  The spirit was decidedly “conservative” in the sense of cautious, even as a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal was being launched as a more formally organized “corporate” type of enterprise (the Articles of Confederation were much more analogous to a “partnership” among the States—with each partner having a nearly full veto power).

During FDR’s First Term, there were also many in Congress who asked whether the Federal Government had the power to do a great many of the things the New Deal proposed to do, from the NRA to the TVA (National Recovery Administration to the Tennessee Valley Authority).  But from 1933-1937, such questions were not asked in a cautious or even skeptical voice regarding what Congress and the Federal government could legitimately do, but in the desperate and panicked voice of people who saw and feared “you are taking our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” from us.  Those people sought recourse against the reckless usurpation of Federal Power in the Supreme Court, and in the years 1933-1937, the Supreme Court struck down 29 Congressionally passed statutes signed by the President as part of the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first hundred days and all that followed provoked an unprecedented clash between the Supreme Court Justices and the “New Deal” alliance of the legislative and executive branches. At Roosevelt’s instigation, Congress in the 1930s enacted a series of laws ostensibly, supposed, aimed at ending the Great Depression and restoring the nation’s economic well-being, but in fact aimed at shoring up the American Elite, especially the Banking system, from the threat of a Communist and/or Fascist revolution analogous to those taking place in Europe at the same time.  Of eight major “program” statutes to come before the Court, only two were upheld. Laws that were struck down included the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.  The Court came under heavy fire for its decisions, and Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to increase the size of the Court, presumably to ensure a majority sympathetic to the New Deal.

Shortly after the plan was proposed, the Court defused the issue by upholding a series of revised New Deal laws.  Dominated by economic conservatives, to which group even late 19th/early 20th Century “Progressives” such as Oliver Wendell Holmes were (by comparison, anyhow) the Court threw out numerous laws Congress enacted to protect workers and consumers. The conflicts peaked in 1936. The Court threw out twenty-nine laws during that period, but the last of these was in 1936, when when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

Everything changed in 1937 when, FDR Proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 on March 9 of that year in one of his legendary “Fireside chats” whereby he jumped over the Congress and all Constitutional Separation of Powers and asked the American people directly to endorse and support his programs.  The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, almost the first time the 33rd President had seen any of his initiatives draw such opposition.  But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw the writing on the wall—mene, mene, tekel upharsin—and when faced with the two major cases challenging Social Security (the ultimate authority and most direct antecedent for Obamacare), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people—the law creating a “Social Security Trust Fund” with the bribed cooperation of the States—into which Social Security Trust Fund not one dime of real money (certainly not one dime of the 14 Trillion dollars paid since 1937 in Social Security Taxes) has ever been paid.

Helvering v. Davis (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis) thus effectively marked the end of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government.  The new mantra was not “that government is best which governs least” but instead, “The concept of the general welfare is not a static one”…. “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.”   (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 1315 [1937])

From that time forward Courts held that there appeared to be only four (all extra-constitutional) prerequisites to a finding that a spending clause measure and condition attached to it are valid: (1) The federal power is used for a legitimate national purpose, i.e., promotion of the general welfare (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 at pp. 585–590, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 890–92 [1937], 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1290–1293); (2) the condition is related to a legitimate national goal (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at pp. 590–591, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 892–93, 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1292–1293; See also Note, Federal Grants and the Tenth Amendment: ‘Things As They Are’ and Fiscal Federalism (1981) 50 Fordham L.Rev. 130, 140–141); (3) the condition is related to the purpose of the federal funds whose receipt is conditioned (FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3132, 82 L.Ed.2d 278, 309 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); State of Okl. v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at pp. 407, 411); and (4) the condition is unambiguous (Pennhurst State School v. Halderman,  451 U.S. at p. 17, 101 S.Ct. at pp. 1539–40 [January 23, 1984])(Pennhurst State School And Hosp v Halderman).
It was in the spirit of such a “living constitution” that Chief Justice John Roberts allied himself with the enemies of limited government on June 28, 2012.  And it is in that sense, much like the Supreme Court in 1937, ruling in Roosevelt’s favor in both of the Social Security Cases, Helvering and Charles Steward above, that Chief Justice John Roberts “saved the Supreme Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html).  More likely, Chief Justice John Roberts just danced on Chief Justice John Marshall’s grave and said, “You think that failure to follow the Constitution is Judicial Treason?  Well, let’s see what you’re going to do about it now.”  According to that same article, Chief Justice Roberts had told the Senate at his confirmation hearings:
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts at the time. “The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Now, strangely enough, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a very different kind of opinion in 1820:

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.  Cohens v State of Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheaton 264 (March 3, 1820)

There is a great deal of confusion among the commentators and pundits, I think, about what “Judicial activism” really means.  I would NOT call Chief Justice John Marshall a Judicial Activist—although, indeed, he advocated throughout his 35 years on the bench a considerably more positive role for the Court in preserving the Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts has shown to date.  “Judicial Activism” does not mean “striking down unconstitutional laws”—“Judicial Activism” as a term should be reserved for reshaping or restructuring the laws in the absence of Congressional Authority to do so.  The “Warren Court” from 1953-1971 was the epitome of “judicial activism”—the Supreme Court during those two decades effectively rewrote the laws of the United States and told CONGRESS and the STATES what to do, rather than vice-versa.

In the case of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts acts his role as an umpire very poorly.  He has seen the foul, called it (under the commerce clause) and “covered it up” under the guise of the taxing power, which (in reality) is even less constitutionally justified than the commerce clause rationale (which at least has the past 75 years of tradition—however illegitimate, behind it).

And so was the U.S. Constitution rewritten in 1937 to allow for first the “relatively” modest program of Social Security and now, 75 years later—on the occasion of the 75th Annual Hunger Games (cf. Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire [2009] and Mockingjay [2010], both New York: Scholastic Press)—Obamacare comes forward to cap the fraud by, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ view—a non-coercive, mere “Tax” on those who do not buy governmentally mandated insurance… and of course, jail for those who do not pay their taxes.

SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION?  NULLIFY OBAMACARE!  I should say that, without any hesitation whatsoever, I absolutely endorse and support the Tenth Amendment Center’s position on Obamacare (this Los Angeles based think tank is just one of the brightest stars on the Political Horizon—of our New Red Dawn):

Now that the Supremes have crushed Constitutional limits once again, the next step is to focus all our energy on a state and local level to NULLIFY this – and every other – unconstitutional act.
We have model legislation for yor state.  Ready to go right now.  Press your state reps to introduce this bill today, or for the next legislative session.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/
Please SHARE this information widely!
*******
We need your help to continue this work, and help people take the next step at the state level.  Please join us, and help nullification happen!  Whether it’s $500 or $5, every bit of help right now is crucial!
Please visit this link to help now:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/
*******
Thomas Jefferson told us that when the government “assumes undelegated powers” a nullification is THE “rightful remedy”
James Madison said that states were “duty bound to interpose….to arrest the progress of evil”
Today’s ruling is an assumption of undelegated powers, and evil is advancing.  The time to act in support of nullification in your area is NOW!  Please share the model legislation for Obamacare with as many people as possible, and please chip in as generously as possible to help us push this campaign aggressively.
While the task is difficult, our cause is just.
Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small thing grow great by concord)
Michael Bolding
Tenth Amendment Center
==================================================
Our mailing address is:
Tenth Amendment Center
123 S. Figueroa St
Suite 1614
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Our telephone:
213.935.0553

AND WHAT DO I DO AS I WATCH ALL THIS TRANSPIRE?

I sigh.  I cry.  And sometimes I just want to lie down and die.  This is not the land of my birth, even though on the map it generally looks like it should be the same country as it was in 1960.

The transformation over the past fifty two years is simply horrific.  52 years was a key cycle of time among the Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Tarascans & Zapotec in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can only say that I feel a certain sympathy for how an Aztec born in 1518 might have felt looking at the wreckage of his once proud nation in 1570 after 52 years of Spanish conquest, rape and pillage.  Like an Aztec born in the last year before the arrival of the Spanish, I have grown up and come to age watching my own people (the American Middle Class, especially Protestants of European descent) reduced to second class status, my people’s most attractive and beautiful women taken as prizes by the conquerors, my nation’s heritage and values denigrated, suppressed and taught in the schools as nothing but “heresy” from the New World Order.

I do speak Spanish fairly well and have spent many of the happier moments in my life in Mexico and elsewhere in the Hispanic World, from Bogotá to Barcelona, and I keep in touch with many friends and acquaintances of a Constitutional mindset from those parts of the world.  When they ask me what I consider to be the greatest single constitutional development under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I tell them without hesitation: N.A.D.A.  (aka Senate Bill 1867, you know, the statute that effectively repealed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that passed the Senate 93-7 last December).

Carrie Luft’s Extraordinary First Amended Complaint Allowed in the Middle District of Florida

Magistrate Judge Sherri Polster Chappell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida sitting in Fort Myers has made me feel like Peter Pan: She’s made me want to crow:  “I’m just the cleverest fellow ’twas ever my pleasure to know!”   Magistrate Judge Chappell has also given Carrie Luft an extraordinary chance to litigate some unique questions of first impression in the USA, such as whether the USA needs a CIVIL Constitutional Writ equivalent to Habeas Corpus, for which I have suggested here (as I have been advocating, on-and-off now, for twenty years) the adoption of the Mexican Constitutional Writ of Amparo:

06-15-2012 First Amended Complaint Carrie Luft 06-15-2012

06-15-2012 Affidavit of Mario Kenny 06-15-2012

The Juicio de Amparo (which can be only VERY roughly translated into English as a “Writ of Prohibition”) enshrined in the Constitution of Mexico is a Constitutional Proceeding with the full force and effect of a CIVIL Writ of Habeas Corpus such as has never existed in the United States.  Historically, this writ originated and was designed by the early 19th century revolutionary Creole (Hispanic White, First generation Colonial) jurists of my “second home” state of Yucatán, so strangely aligned from the late 1830s onward through Ernesto de Zavala (born in Ticul, Yucatán) with my “first home” state of Texas.  Of course, it was neither Zavala who authored the Texas Declaration of Independence and gave his name to the State Archives building in Austin nor the famous Editor of the three great “incunabular” press journals of Southeastern Mexico, El Fenix de Yucatán, El Museo Yucateco, and the Registro de Yucatán, namely Justo Sierra O’Reilly who solicited Congress to admit Yucatán as a State in the 1840s.  Rather it was a figure even less well-known to even to the well-educated American, by the Manuel Crescencio García Rejón, born in Bolonchenticul, Yucatán, a small town now renamed in his honour Bolonchén de Rejón, in the (now separate Mexican) State of Campeche and across the Puuc (Hill Country of Yucatán) from Ticul itself where Zavala was born.

Bolonchen means “Nine Wells” in Yucatec Maya. The number nine is quite mystically intriguing here, being, however coincidentally, not only the number of levels of Hell in both the Maya Underworld of Xibalbá and Dante’s Inferno, but also the number of justices who sit on the United States Supreme Court…. It was the Nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger Taney, whose theory of Constitutional review by judicial procedure so thoroughly impressed and influenced this heroic Hispanic jurist whose name should become famous in the United States of America:

Manuel Crescencio García Rejón

1799-1849

A Great Mexican Constitutionalist and Yucatec Creole Nationalist

I feel strangely certain that if telephones or the internet had existed in the 1830s and 40s, the provincial creole patriots of Yucatán, introduced through Ernesto de Zavala and Justo Sierra O’Reilly, would have thoroughly made friends with John Caldwell Calhoun, Chief Justice Taney, and the other great Southern Constitutionalists of that time, and that Mérida would have become the Southern terminus of a cross-Gulf commerce linked to Galveston, Mobile, and New Orleans in a “Greater South” including all of Mexico after 1848.  In light of subsequent history, in light of the likely union of our countries within the next hundred years, it cannot be said that it would have been so bad for all this to happen a century and a half ago.  For one thing the Creole and Native American Mexicans would never have had to suffer the indignities and inferior status to which they have been relegated by the strangely “colonialist” policies which resulted from the United States’ FAILURE or REFUSAL to integrate Mexico in 1848…. the Hacendados of Mexico would have aligned themselves naturally with the Plantation Owners of the South and the large Indian populations would have had MORE protection under American Constitutional Law than they had under MOST of Mexican history–but all this is a terrible digression from Carrie Luft’s Crusade against the Corruption in Florida Courts (although it is a corruption echoing Miami’s status as “the Capital of Latin America” and Florida’s status, with Louisiana, as the Northernmost Banana Republic…..

I reiterate, we NEED your responses to Carrie’s survey, and so far we have gotten VERY FEW:  06-06-2012 DECLARATION CONCERNING JUDICIAL HABITS

Please circulate this all around and return to one of us, either to Carrie directly or to me c/o Peyton Yates Freiman at our “Home Office” of 603 Elmwood Place, #6, Austin, Texas 78705 or to me at Mid-Cities Escrow in Downey:

MID-CITIES ESCROW, Charles Edward Lincoln, III CEO & Director,

10890 Paramount Blvd., Downey, CA 90241, (562) 861-2251 facsimile.

or by e-mail here to this blog!

The First Day of Summer, Reflections on the Solstice, the 797th Anniversary of Magna Charta, Juneteenth, the Committee of Five, with only six months left until the End of the World as we Know it?

The Summer Solstice 2012 

(and the countdown for the last six months before Winter Solstice 2012 and then—the great yawning abyss of the time which comes after the end of time?—- or was it a great a yawning abbess who didn’t know what time it was, I can’t remember…. a really big abscess? a yawn exposing an abscessed tooth that went without treatment for too much time?  Whatever….)

At 23:09 (11:09 PM) Wednesday night in London, the earth reached its maximum northward axial tilt of 23 degrees and 26 Minutes—so I guess the time was about 4:09 in the afternoon Pacific Daylight time.  So today, June 21, 2012, is the First Day of Summer and soon with come the day of Saint John the Baptist.  Summer berries have come out all over northern Europe and so one of my favorite distinctively German drinks, Johannisbeersaft (Johnny Berry Juice?) can now be made in season…. Nun aber kam, Johannistag… as Hans Sachs sings on St. John’s night in Richard Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg…..Knowing the nearly thousand year history of the Master Singers of Nuremberg and having grown up on Wagner’s opera, I think I have written here before how terribly disappointed I was upon being invited there for the first time (just two weeks after my Harvard Ph.D. graduation where the German Chancellor Helmut Josef Michael Kohl delivered a commencement address, coincident with the previous year’s collapse of the Berlin Wall and my receiving a Volkswagen Fellowship to the University of Bonn that year and summer) to a private tour of Die Meistersingerhalle in modern Nurnberg on Johannistag 1990 I came face-to-face with a totally modern building, neither more nor less interesting than the Wang Center in Boston, the Dallas Theatre Centre or the Dallas City Hall, or the Los Angeles Civic Center or the LA County Art Museum, or Lincoln Hall itself in New York City.  Today’s Meistersingerhalle was built in 1963…. Historic, Mediaeval and Renaissance, Nurnberg having been essentially erased from the map, like most German cities, in the allied bombings of 1944-45, because we were the civilized and morally superior conquerors of a nation which…. had bombed but never totally obliterated even one single British Western European City….

I was jealous of a friend today, an old Harvard Colleague John W. Hoopes who was headed from Kansas to Chichén Itzá on this Summer Solstice…. The Yucatec Maya marked the solstices and equinoxes at their greatest architectural monuments with a variety of symbolic architectural and iconographic contrivances…. the Maya obsession with time has recently “gone global” of course with the Baktun 13 2012 End of the World “HYPE”othesis…  As I told John, I don’t accept the Thompson correlation of Maya and Christian calendars, and since I don’t believe that Baktun 13 is ending this year at all, I wouldn’t be worried even if I DID believe that Baktun 13 was going to be the end of the world (because under the 11.3.0.0.0 or Vaillant correlation, Baktun 13 won’t happen for at least another 256 years, and I, for one, plan to be dead by then….no matter what anyone else has to say about my plans….).  John is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, so he’ll understand if not forgive some of my discussions here…..about the history and mythology which shape modern times.

The eleven days of June 11-June 21 mark critical events in the history of our Anglo-American constitutional democracy.  

THE SURRENDER OF THE LAST CONFEDERATE CITY & SEAPORT (Galveston, Texas) on June 19, 1865

Strangest and most imbued with historical mythology rather than real historical significance among these days is the most recent: Juneteenth.  June 19, 1865, was a day in history that two of my sixteen great-great-grandparents (my mother’s father’s paternal grandparents) actually witnessed as children in Galveston, Texas.  Juneteenth happened on the date of the surrender of the last Confederate seaport and city of any consequence (namely Galveston, Texas), two months and ten days after General Robert E. Lee’s April 9 surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia.

Galveston surrendered that day without a fight, and the Union Navy officers read and proclaimed that all slaves had been freed effective January 1, 1863 (which happened to be the New Year’s Day that the Confederates, in what was known as the “Battle of the Cottonclads” RETOOK Galveston back into CSA sovereignty from an early naval occupation by the US forces, keeping it until this final surrender of the war).    It now seems that 31 States around the country celebrate the surrender of Confederate Galveston, to wit, as of 2009, it was announced that “Kansas will join Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Delaware, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, California, Wyoming, Illinois, Missouri, Connecticut, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Colorado, Arkansas, Oregon, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Virginia, Washington State, Tennessee, Massachusetts, North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Vermont, Nebraska and the District of Columbia in recognizing the end of enslavement in America,” states Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., Chairman of the National Juneteeenth Holiday Campaign.

Of course, the historical and legal fact is the Constitution of the United States did not allow the 16th President, or any of my other distant cousins, the authority to free the slaves by proclamation.  I don’t know whether the Emancipation Proclamation was the first “Legislative Decree” issued by any President of the United States in plain violation of separation of powers, but it was certainly one of the most far reaching, ever.  The Modern Equivalent, if the reader can set aside her or his emotional reactions to slavery, would be if a President decreed that, as of a certain date, New Yorkers, Californians, Pennsylvanians, and residents of Connecticut and New Jersey could no longer own or operate cars.

I fear that President Obama probably believes that he can issue such an order. What I fear even more is that the Congress and Supreme Court of the United States might ALLOW him to issue such an order, to let it stand.   Obama might well do so in the interest of reducing traffic and air pollution in the two most densely populated and heavily congested traffic areas of the United States, but the constitution simply does not allow it.  And the Constitution never did allow the President to change the internal laws of the several states.  No President today could alter the abortion or divorce laws of the individual states of the Union, no matter how strongly he felt about it, no matter how much popular support there was for such a move, and no President, in a democratic society SHOULD have the power to (a) legalize or (b) criminalize any kind of property ownership in the individual states or nationwide.  President Abraham Lincoln was, sadly I say this, the first truly criminal President the United States ever had, in that most of what he did, he did outside of the law, but President Abraham Lincoln was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the last truly criminal President of the United States.  Which brings us to the interesting question, who was the last completely constitutionally compliant President of the USA, and the answer might just be, either James Buchanan, or just possibly Grover Cleveland…. Rutherford B. Hayes and some of the other late 19th Century Presidents didn’t do a great many unconstitutional things…. but Rutherford B. Hayes cannot be counted as a constitutional president since he won neither the electoral nor the popular vote of 1876 but lost both to one of my lifelong heroes, Democratic President Samuel J. Tilden, Governor of New York, who won both the popular and electoral votes, but refused to plunge the United States into another great war (which, in 1876, would have been  “Civil War” in the true historical sense, compared with the English Civil War of 1642-1649 that the American War Between the States of 1861-65 never was….)

The New York Times published on Juneteenth this year a disturbing article “Southern Baptist Convergence” advocating the notion that history must be rewritten to accommodate a certain view of “Black Pride” and Communism:  “If conservative evangelicals are serious about making common political cause with black Protestants, they must revise their expectation that a free market and and a population that obeys their particular reading of scripture will correct the injustices ingrained in American society. They must rethink their approach to America’s history and its modern-day problems.” (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/southern-baptist-convergence/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120619)

The rewriting of history as a precondition for political and religious realignment should be a deeply disturbing notion to everyone.   I for one DO favor constant historical revisionism, but I know that it cuts both ways.  As suggested above, for example, I do not consider my namesake and distant cousin Abraham Lincoln to be a great President at all.  In fact, I would rate him as something of a monster.  The Sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln suspended the guarantees against false and illegal imprisonment embodied in the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus (one of the great heirlooms of Magna Charta, see below, Clause 29, to be precise).  The Forty Fourth President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, has all but abolished the writ of habeas corpus entirely under the guise of the National Defense Authorization Act (last year’s Senate Bill 1867) which authorizes indefinite detention without charges or trial.

THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE

In 1776, actually since about 1763, the second largest English Speaking population in the world felt that it had not received its fair inheritance of the Rights and Liberties of the English people.

The Virginia Resolve of 15 May 1776 was passed by the Fifth Virginia Convention in the old House of Burgesses at Williamsburg. This historic three-part resolve became the basis of action plans for three America-wide measures later recommended for adoption by the Continental Congress. The three measures addressed were: [i] Independency; [ii] Diplomacy; and [iii] Confederacy.

Richard Henry Lee, head of the Virginia delegation, was “instructed” by the Virginia Convention to move the Virginia Resolve as a Congressional resolution to be adopted on behalf of the Grand American Association of the thirteen United Colonies of North America. The timing of its introduction before Congress was left to the discretion of the Virginia delegation.

Lee laid the Virginia Resolve before Congress on the Monday morning of 27 May 1776, along with a similar resolve submitted by the North Carolina delegation, adopted the previous month at North Carolina’s Halifax Convention, and dated 12 April 1776. On 27 May 1776, both resolves were “read” and “ordered to lie on the table.” This event marked the day that two colonies served that semi-outlaw Congress with  formal notice that the time had arrived for all the colonies, thirteen-as-one, to prepare and to make a break  from the sovereignty, and the reigning sovereign, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Eleven days later, on 7 June 1776, in accordance with the parliamentary mode of introducing consideration of a new measure, the same Richard Henry Lee of the Virginia delegation “moved” the Virginia Resolve, which was duly “seconded” by John Adams of the Massachusetts delegation.

On this day and by this historic step the Virginia Resolve of May 15th, earlier tabled on May 27th, became the Lee Resolution of June 7th. After two days of protracted debate on the Lee Resolution, conducted throughout Saturday the 8th and Monday the 10th, the process culminated in a crucial, adopted resolve of Congress, enacted on the late Monday afternoon of the 10th.

By the resolve of June 10th Congress agreed to defer further debate on the Independency measure for three weeks, in order to give adequate time for each of the still undecided colonies to come to a decision on how to instruct its delegation on the three measures proposed. Within two days of this June 10th decision three interlocking committees had been established, one for each of the three measures in the Lee Resolution: [i] A committee to prepare a broadside manifesto to justify Independency declared; [ii] A committee to prepare a constitution for Confederacy; and [iii] A committee to prepare template treaties of mutual defense and commerce. Thus was the Congressional stage set for the decisive debate and vote on Independency expected to take place on Monday, 1 July 1776.

On June 11, 1776, the Continental Congress of that second largest English-speaking population in the world appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston to the “Committee of Five”

Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston

to draft a declaration of independence.    A famous painting by John Trumbull shows the presentation of the declaration to the full Congress by this committee on June 28, 1776:  John Turnbull's famous painting---famous for the history, not the great art.....

797TH ANNIVERSARY OF MAGNA CHARTA: 

The earliest of the key historical events in the Constitutional history of the Anglo-American world directly attributable with some historical confidence to this week were those which took place exactly 797 years ago (18th century adjustments in the English Calendar being ignored for the moment) June 15-19, by the Thames River in the far northwest corner of the County of Surrey in England. 

The name Runnymede may be derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘runieg‘ (“running” or regular meeting) and ‘mede’ (mead or meadow). The name designates “a place in the meadows used to hold regular meetings” (the meetings were probably “running” in the modern sense, although in modern slang perhaps, “the place to go if you’re in the know” captures it better—it was only for the elite, to be sure, the landholding barons and the king).

What is certainly true of this place is than an ancient social institution or loosely structured organization analogous to the Viking “Thinga” (Allthinga), known in Anglo-Saxon times as theWitan, Witenagemot or Council met with the Kings of the South Saxons, the Saxons of South Ridge, and the Western Saxon (Sussex, Surrey,  and Wessex) from the 7th to 11th centuries took place at Runnymede.  The most regularly “running” meetings in the original Kingdom of England (United Angles & Saxons under the Kingdom of Wessex) started to institutionalize this place from time to time during the reign of Alfred the Great. The  Witan/Witenagemot, like the Norse/Icelandic Thinga (Allthing or the earliest Roman “Res Publica” including the Senatus & Quirites) normally met in the open air.  The political organ known as the Witan evolved and transformed itself in the years succeeding 1215, which all English speaking peoples take as the moment of conception of the birth of what later became known in England’s 13th century as “the place to talk” (in Norman French or) “parliament.”

At the water-meadow at Runnymede  in 1215, King John of England affixed his great seal to the Articles of the Barons on June 15 (the barons having entered and effectively “arrested” King John on June 10).  The barons in turn sealed the Magna Carta on June 19.  The charter indicates Runnymede by name as the place of its creation.  Although only three of its original 63 clauses persist essentially unchanged as part of modern British law, the Magna Carta had an inestimable historical impact on common and constitutional law as well as concepts of political representation also affecting the development of the modern parliament, not only of England, Scotland, and Ireland, the Congress and Legislatures of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and now dearly departed  Dominion of South Rhodesia/Republic of Rhodesia).   Indirectly, what happened at Runnymeade, through the influence of the British Empire, especially after the American Revolution and the Fall of Napoleon Bonaparte, has reshaped the political landscape of Europe, Latin America, and Japan, of the entire civilized, and democratic world, excluding only the most barbarous Arabic Kingdoms.  Tthis most barbarous list clearly includes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, America’s long-standing ally—because even America’s next likely war-target the Islamic Republic of Iran, possesses a Parliament composed of and representing “the propertied middle class” = bourgeois, the French Third Estate, which directly evolved together with the English Parliament due to the long association of England and France) and some of the most backwards and benighted African and Asian nations which possess neither parliaments nor congresses of any kind.

Three clauses of Magna Charta have survived for these 797 years, unscathed, as part of the law of Great Britain, only the last of these (“Clause 29”) having crossed the Atlantic into the American Constitution:

  • 1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
  • 9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
  • 29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

In Memoriam, Stefan Frederick Cook

Originally Published January 14, 2012 at 5:49 AM—I am republishing this now (1) to keep alive the memory of a friend six months after his death, (2) because I received a scurrilous (that’s Latin for “squirrelly”) attack on his memory as a comment, and I felt honor-bound to remind the world of how dangerous it is to allow even the most unpleasant falsehoods to go unanswered.  Major Stefan Frederick Cook had an astounding resumé of service to his country.  Like Robert E. Lee, at the start of 1861, he was tortured by his conscience, the duty he had sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and by his feeling that, under Obama, there could be no justice, not even the pretense of American righteousness, because it was so painfully obvious that Obama was, and still is, a total fraud.  Yes, by the laws of the United States, Military Officers must all swear to uphold the Constitution, and Major Stefan Frederick Cook gave his long and distinguished career so that he might uphold his oath….  Whatever illusions anyone might have had about Barack Hussein Obama’s determination to destroy the United States and turn this country into a Socialist-Military Dictatorship died just 11 days before Stefan Frederick Cook, when the de facto President signed the NDAA, Senate Bill 1867, into law on New Year’s Eve…… which should now be remembered as the Day the Constitution Died…..

Stefan Frederick Cook, a good friend and treasured ally in the cause to preserve American Honor and to defend the Constitution since I first heard of and met him in June 2009, just died of pancreatic cancer in Tampa, Florida this past Wednesday January 11.
He was barely two months my senior, but his military resume was something astounding. There was hardly an action that had taken place or a medal he hadn’t won since 1980. He was exactly the kind of man that makes us so proud of the modern military. I had simply never seen a curriculum vitae that looked like a historical inventory of military events and achievements of the past 30 years.
And yet he had a Constitutional Conscience and a High Regard for his Oath even above his brilliant career. I had no idea he was sick. He and I had talked late last year about his coming out to California to help with the Campaign—I had suggested he run for Senate in Florida. What a brave and noble soul he was and will always remain in my mind.

I shall miss you, Stefan Frederick Cook: a brave man of vast integrity who stood up and said, “I will not serve an unconstitutional President in an unconstitutional war; I will not betray my oath or the integrity of my country and international law.”
There should be a monument to this man for all he was and all he did for his country, the indignities he suffered at the hands of pathetic worms, nullities, obots, fogblowers and politijabbers.  The actions he took in defying the President of the United States were the opposite of unprincipled ambition: Stefan Frederick Cook’s last stand as an army officer was in the highest tradition of personal self-sacrifice for the national good.
Ave atque Vale, Frater Meo Armis. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

This must have happened very quickly.  I had been in touch with Stefan late last year during the holidays…the following article appeared in the Post & Email yesterday:

LT. COL COOK PASSED AWAY. HE WAS A GREAT PATRIOT AND A FIGHTER AGAINST OUR CRIMINAL USURPER OBAMA. MAY LT. COL COOK REST IN PEACE. MAY MANY OTHERS RISE AND FIGHT THE CRIMINALS IN POWER IN MEMORY OF LTC COOK

Posted on | January 13, 2012 |

19459073  Lt. Col.

The Post & Email has just learned that Lt. Col. Stefan Cook, about whose illness we reported yesterday, has passed away at the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital in Tampa, FL at approximately 2:30 p.m. today of pancreatic cancer. Cook, then a Major in the U.S. Army Reserves, had challenged Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president in July 2009 through Atty. Orly Taitz. After Taitz filed the lawsuit in Georgia, Cook’s orders to deploy to Afghanistan were rescinded by the Army, a move which Taitz had hailed as a victory. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Maj. Cook had expressed his concern that he might be carrying out illegal orders in the event that Obama was not constitutionally qualified to issue them. He had told WorldNetDaily, ”[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections.” SNIP Previous article at the Post and Email. Free Republic prayer threads here and here. Link to roaddog727′s homepage on FR. He joined Free Republic on September 7, 2003. His last post was on December 21, 2011. YouTube video of roaddog727 speaking at the Free Republic National Convention on September 11, 2009. (Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com …

May the Fourth be with You (and with thy Spirit)…. May 3rd was Day of the Holy Cross (in the Old BCP anyhow); Warnings from History about the Coming Dark Age: May 3 is also Polish Constitution of 1791 Day, and the 60th Anniversary of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company Petition for Certiorari

Yes, May the Fourth is international Star Wars Day (“May the Fourth be with You”—but watch out for the “Revenge of the Fifth”), and yesterday, all over Western Christendom, is or at least used to be called “the Day of the Holy Cross” (this construction of the Calendar is sometimes said to be a “Gallican” custom, involving the mixture of Celtic rites of Beltane [May Day] with Christianity, in the time of Saint Gregory of Tours and other such French sources predating the time of Charlamagne*, but even as a 20th century Anglican/Episcopalian, I grew up thinking that Constantine’s Mother the Empress Helen**  went to Jerusalem and found the “true Cross” fragments on May 3, and when I started traveling to and living in Mexico I found that the Mexicans [in “Veracruz” and elsewhere] still celebrate the 3rd, notwithstanding anything Pope John XXIII did the year I was born [1960], and the Maya of Yucatán—see my birthday greetings for Pedro Un Cen on May 1—still celebrate May 3 as the day that the Chaacs (the Ancient Maya Raingods) return to the land from the East to start the beginning of the rainy season, but Last things first:

POLISH CONSTITUTION OF 1791 Day: A Warning for our Time

Most Americans have heard of American Revolutionary War hero General  Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kościuszko (at least by the shorter version of his name: Tadeusz Kosciuszko).  He came to the United States to assist in the War of Independence for no reason other than he thought it was the right thing to do.  He was a volunteer Patriot in Founding a country 1/3 of the way around the world from his homeland.  

I have the feeling that Kosciuszko lived to feel even more defeated than John W. Davis….(see my adjoining post on the 60th Anniversary of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Petition for Writ of Certiorari) possibly more like Jefferson Davis must have felt…..  

Kosciuszko lived long enough after the American Revolution to see first the French Revolution, then the final partition of his own homeland by three of the major powers OPPOSED to the French Revolution, the restoration of the core of his homeland (briefly) between 1807 and 1815, and then the final re-annexation of Poland by Russia after the Congress of Vienna in 1815—a situation which would endure for another 104 years….

After helping launch the American nation, with a career comparable and in some ways parallel to the actions of the Marquis de Lafayette in France, Kosciuszko went back to his native Poland where he tried to rebuild and save his own nation, and modernize its constitution in light of what he had learned and seen in America. I have previously, on this blog, mentioned the wonderful Polish Professor Wiktor Osiatynski under whom I was privileged to study at the University of Chicago 1990-1991 and my fascination with the Polish nation and constitutional history has never ceased since then.  Poland is a Phoenix-like nation having been consumed by fire into ashes and portioned by its neighbors Germany and Russia at least twice (and Austria once).  The metaphoric image of the mythical Phoenix arising from its flames parallels takes on added and appropriate meaning given Poland’s association with the City and University of Chicago, not least since Chicago is the largest Polish-speaking urban area anywhere outside of Poland and the City itself has at least once or twice in history arisen from the flames (after the Great Fire of 1871, but arguably again after the riots of 1968 also…).  

On May 3, Poland celebrated the 221st anniversary of the Constitution of 1791, the last Constitution before the two final (18th century) partitions of Poland 1793-1795.   The Twentieth Century Partition of Poland, between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia was in a thousand ways much worse, more brutal, more destructive, but also much shorter in duration.  The 18th Century Partitions of Poland were reversed by the Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte in 1807 as he vainly tried to restrict and limit the power of Prussia.  The Von Ribbentrop-Molotov (aka “Stalin-Hitler”) Pact of 1941 was reversed a mere four years later, but not before Poland had not only been savaged by Nazi occupation but by the Stalinist reprisal which, in terms of meaningful reality, involved much vaster forced migrations than any that history had ever seen, and comparable only to the forced internal migrations (poorly documented though they are) which took place in Maoist China during the “Cultural Revolution”.  

Now you might ask, why should an American care about learning the details of Polish Constitutional History?  As Professor Wiktor Osiatynski made us all aware in the two courses he taught that year at the University of Chicago, Poland’s constitutional history was a major source of its downfall.  Prior to meeting and studying with Wiktor, my primary familiarity with recent modern Poland had been a vague knowledge of the partitions of the late 18th century, the fact that Napoleon I had created the Duchy of Warsaw, and that Chopin and many other 19th century artists had gained fame for the culture of Poland and quietly advocated the restoration of Polish Sovereignty and Nationality.

Of course, I had also been very generally aware from a lifetime obsession with historical cartography, I was aware that Poland had once been the largest nation in Europe—a fact, again, which probably very few Americans must know.***  Yes, the combination of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland once not merely “dominated” but in effect “was” all of Eastern Europe—controlling during most of the 15th-early 18th Centuries all of the territory from the Baltic to the Black Seas, dwarfing “barbarous” Russian during most of that time, although Russia started climbing out of an inferior position in the 16th century, though it did not achieve “world nation” status until the 18th under Peter and Catherine the Great.  

But indeed, the Constitutional History of Poland and Lithuania together is very interesting, and historically relevant for Americans, especially in this day and age.  Lithuania, so it was forced to ally more closely with Poland, uniting with its western neighbor as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Commonwealth of Two Nations) in the Union of Lublin of 1569. According to the Union many of the territories formerly controlled by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were transferred to the Crown of the Polish Kingdom, while the gradual process of Polonization slowly drew Lithuania itself under Polish domination. The Grand Duchy retained many rights in the federation (including a separate government, treasury and army) until the May 3 Constitution of Poland was passed in 1791. 

I submit to you, “my fellow Americans” that we today are much like Poland—because of the abrogation of our traditional Federal Union into a centralized dictatorship, we are weak and face extinction, division, and perhaps even partition between, say, China, Mexico, and a resurgent Europe.  

* Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent Charlemagne, at the King of the Franks’ personal request, a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of Saint Gregory, which certainly represented the Western Roman “Early Dark Ages” use of the end of the eighth century.  This book, far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the Gallican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been gradually supplanting the Gallican. The editor may well have been Charlemagne’s principal liturgical advisor, the  Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne’s empire, and this “composite liturgy”, as Duchesne says, “from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Frankish Empire and at length, finding its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use”. More than half a century later, when Charles the Bald wished to see what the ancient Gallican Rite had been like, it was necessary to import Hispanic priests to celebrate it in his presence, because the Gallican rite took root firmly in Toledo, Viscaya, Aragon, Catalunia, and elsewhere in the land of the Christian Visigoths of Hispania before the arrival of the Moors (and survived there ever after, even during the Caliphate of Cordoba—which resilience explains why May 3 remains the Day of the Holy Cross everywhere in Latin America).

The Luxeuil Lectionary, the Gothicum and Gallicum Missals, and the Gallican adaptations of the Hieronymian Martyrology are the chief authorities on this point, and to these may be added some information to be gathered from the regulations of the Councils of Agde (506), Orléans (541),Tours (567), and Mâcon (581), and from the “Historia Francorum” of St. Gregory of Tours, as to the Gallican practice in the sixth century.

** Constantine’s Mother the Empress Helen did a lot of traveling and established a lot of Churches.  Named after Helen of Troy, Empress Helen kept the name alive and popular among the Christians, and it was the Empress Helen, I am told, after whom were named both my Louisiana-born grandmother who raised me with love and my Greek-born wife who razed me with something else.

***For my lifelong obsession with maps, I have mostly my mother to blame, because she bought me so many Atlases–Shepard’s Historical Atlas, Oxford Historical Atlas, just for starters–when I was very small and for some reason decorated my boyhood room with a collection historical individually framed maps of almost every county in England, Wales, & Scotland—this led to my grandparents, somewhat later, always putting me in charge of studying the maps when we traveled and making reports on local geography as we did—Baedeker was almost like a family friend, and sometimes AAA and National Geographic.

Re: Really Bad Patriot Mythology—When Ideas can be applied practically, stick with them….when they only lead you down rabbit-trails…..”just say ‘no'”….

I have had friends and mentors present some of those ideas to me for close to 40 years. The conclusion I have came to is, if there is something to these theories I still don’t know how to use it to my benefit. In my battles to clean up our legal system I have had more positive affect by holding up a sign in front of the courthouse letting the public know the judge was unfair or dishonest than I believe I could have had by standing mute or saying the court does not have jurisdiction over me. I have also used my campaigns for political and judicial office as a soapbox to inform the public to some affect. Maybe someone can use those ideas to gain some advantage. Although it took a lot of patience and the help of Charles Lincoln, Roger Kehew and others, I am proud of our contribution to getting the Montana Supreme Court to come out with the attached opinion using methods that made sense to me.

I carried a couple of bills during the last legislative session that would have helped the system some more. It is too bad they were killed in the process. Would you like to help get similar bills passed in the coming session if I am lucky enough to get re-elected?

Jerry O’Neil
Montana HD 3
406-892-7602