If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by Ron Ewart, ©2010

We are no longer governed by the U.S. and state Constitutions; hence, false imprisonments by activist judges, land grabs, and the passage of unconstitutional laws with regularity

(Dec. 3, 2010) — “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.” — Albert Einstein

“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”  — Winston Churchill

There you have it.  Three admonitions by well respected leaders of countries and science and in its 234-year history, America has violated all three.  American law has become the will of tyrants that violate the unalienable, God-given rights of individuals, too many laws have been passed such that millions of laws and rules are leading us towards a police state, if we aren’t there already and passing laws that cannot or will not, or are too complicated to be enforced, is an all-too-common occurrence.

What good is a country of laws if we selectively enforce some laws but negligently or willfully ignore others, at the whim of those in power, be it politicians, bureaucrats, prosecuting attorneys, judges, or law-enforcement officers?  What becomes a country of laws, if law-abiding citizens decide to willfully ignore the law, because there are just too many laws and every citizens is a de facto, law breaker?  What respect will the people have for the rule of law, if some laws receive greater attention, or greater emphasis, than other laws?  (environmental laws are now vigorously prosecuted and examples made out of individuals who dare to violate them with heavy fines and jail times, while car thieves have to steal a car 7 times before they go to jail) Why should law abiding citizens obey the law, when huge segments of the population are allowed to break the law with impunity?  And finally, why shouldn’t law-abiding, tax-paying legal citizens of the United States not be furious, when 13,000,000 law breakers are generously rewarded for breaking the law?  America, a country of laws?  Hardly!

Within months of the passing of Obama Care, winners and losers were slowly emerging with each passing day, winners and losers picked by government.  From the Health and Human Services website we learn that 111 waivers to Obama Care have been granted by the government to some corporations and unions ….. the winners.  Those not receiving waivers are hosed …… the losers.

Government breaks its bond with the people when it passes laws that are clearly in violation of constitutional limitations and they have been doing it for at least a century, if not more.  Courts break their judicial bond with the people when they legislate from the bench, in clear violation of statute or constitutional mandate.  As an example, the U. S. Supreme Court “invented law” (Roe vs. Wade) out of whole cloth when they decreed that the legal right to an abortion was protected by the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers would be aghast at this decision by the high court.

A mockery was made of the Constitution, the Supreme Law, when President Clinton issued an executive order (EO 12852, June 29, 1993) establishing the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development,” when clearly sustainable development was the brainchild of an international body, the United Nations, and ran contrary to American law, especially property rights law.  Essentially, if sustainable development was to be established as American law, and since it was developed internationally, the proper venue was a treaty that should have been debated and ratified, if approved by the U. S. Congress.  The president openly and blatantly circumvented Article I, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution, but presidents have been circumventing the Constitution for a very long time.  Good ‘Ole FDR issued over 3,700 executive orders during his three terms in office, more than the last five presidents combined.  Presidential executive orders have long been a bone of contention by legal scholars, as to their constitutional authority.

If the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government are allowed to twist, distort, manipulate or circumvent the specific limitations placed upon them by the U. S. Constitution and they are further allowed to unilaterally OPT out of or expand one or more of those limits, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.  If the Constitution is meaningless and can be violated at will, than the Supreme Law of the Land is null and void and the very foundation of our freedom and liberty goes the way of the dinosaurs.  Are we there yet?  Close, very close!

If 13,000,000 illegal aliens are allowed to obtain amnesty and ultimately citizenship and they are rewarded with this sought-after honor by breaking our laws, how can any other law be looked upon as being enforceable?

To illustrate the insanity of this situation, here are a few lines we received recently on this very subject:

A Connecticut woman gives an impassioned speech, proudly declaring that she is “undocumented.” She goes on to say that she suddenly realized that her “legal status or social security number may stand between her dreams and her future.” REALLY!  There are people from all over the world who didn’t come here illegally who also have dreams about their future.  Why should anyone be rewarded for breaking a country’s laws? She says; “We (illegals) won’t stand on the sidelines anymore.”  “For years I learned to be quiet and to live in the shadows and to hide.”

When over 13,000,000 illegal aliens get the idea that they can now come out of the shadows and demand rights they don’t have or are entitled to, what does this say about the rights of law-abiding citizens, or the laws that govern them? And where did the idea come from that illegals now feel that they can come out of the shadows?  Pandering by liberals!

If the Congress can pass a law that is purely a wish list of special interests, whomever they may be, (try Monsanto, George Soros and the Food and Safety Act, S510) and they can do so with the new law having no constitutional basis whatsoever, then the Congress can literally pass any damn law they choose.  If Congress is allowed to exercise this plenary power, than there is not one single individual right that isn’t at risk.  The government “giveth” and the government “taketh” away!  Natural, God-given rights are just a figment of the people’s imagination under this scenario.

If the putative President of the United States can nationalize a business and fire its chief executive, then there is not one single business in America that isn’t at risk of the same treatment, small or large.

When the courts become isolated and entrenched from the people, (and they are) when the legal system becomes corrupted by so many rules and procedures and only the chosen few (lawyers and judges) know what the Hell is going on in the courts, true justice is the loser and injustices are the rule, rather than the exception.  This author has had experience in both federal and superior courts as a pro se plaintiff and came up against this entrenchment.

If a Supreme Court, state or federal, can adjudicate law and legislation in compliance with the beliefs, tenets and biases of a particular political party, or pursuant to international law and the intent of the framers of the Constitution, state or federal, is cast aside, interpretation of a constitution is left open to any whim of the majority of the court.  That means that the last leg of the Founder’s Separation of Powers Doctrine, the judicial branch, can be corrupted by the other two branches.  FDR was a master at corrupting the other two branches of government to get his way, including the judicial branch.  Under FDR’s term in office, the U. S. Supreme Court was “twisted” from a conservative court to a liberal court, with the flip of just one justice, out of the nine justices.

Once a country that lives by the rule of law finds itself with leaders that can subvert, circumvent or invent new laws without limitation, can fascism be far behind?

In closing, we submit that there are five (5) hard and fast governing principles a free country must live by, or it will die, or morph into one of three (3) types of governing methods: 1) an Absolute Democrat Monarchy where the mob rules, under the direction of the elite class; 2) a socialist or communist country where everyone is made equal except the ruling class; or 3) a dictatorship where the people are ruled with an iron fist and only the dictator has any rights.  The history books are full of such one-man regimes.

  1. The first principle for national survival for a free country is, you do not make a country stronger by making the people weaker and dependent on government.  You only subjugate a people in this manner.
  2. The second principle is, you do not spend more money than you are taking in and you do not tax the people to the point it will stifle entrepreneurial effort.
  3. The third principle is, you do not pass too many regulatory laws, but the laws you do pass must be enforced, or the rule of law collapses.
  4. The fourth principle is, no politician should be allowed to serve more than two consecutive terms.  Long-term political empires lead to elitism, arrogance, corruption, back-room deals, payoffs and racketeering.
  5. The final principle is, the preponderance of the people and those in government must be motivated by honor, integrity, honesty and morality, or the first four principles won’t matter.  If there is no honor, there is no trust.  If there is no trust, corruption reigns supreme.  It sounds a little like where we are now.

Our Founding Fathers gave us some pretty good guidelines to go by, to maintain and preserve our Constitutional Republic.  No, it’s not perfect.  But representative government, under the U. S. Constitution and free-market capitalism, have proven to be the most productive governing method to maintain individual freedom, liberty and a thriving, growing economy.  But representative government disintegrates when power is concentrated in too few hands and when our representatives have no honor and refuse to obey the RULE OF LAW.  If the Supreme Law of the Land can be violated at will, then all other law, under the Supreme Law, has no foundation upon which to base its validity and a failed government, under chaos and anarchy, will be the final reward.


Ron Ewart is President of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO)

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. In case any of you missed this last night I am re posting this info from miss tickly, where she proves the seal on Obama’s “birth certificate” is a forgery.

    misstickly | December 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Reply

    I hope you guys don’t mind if I leave a link to a post here from my blog. It’s my first one in a very long time and I only published it today, so please let me know if you notice any glitches.

    The Hawaii Department of Health finally disclosed an image of their ‘departmental embossed seal’ to me through a UIPA request and not only did they do everything to try to keep from giving it to me–but *ahem* it is probably not what Obama voters imagined.=) Anyway, everything is in the post….thanks!


  2. This is something I firmly believe We the People will be required to know
    and understand and live by,before We can ever hope to right the injustice
    that has been visited on Us by the Federal Government.

    The primary function of the independent juror is not,as many think,to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws,but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.
    The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury.This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government
    wants to deprive any person of life,liberty,or property.Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict. http://fija.org/

  3. This might be a good time to get a preview of coming events: Read the Diary of Anne Frank.
    “…After May 1940 the good times were few and far between: first there was the war, then the capitulation and then the arrival of the Germans, which is when the trouble started for the Jews. Our freedom was severely restricted by a series of anti-Jewish decrees: Jews were required to wear a yellow star; Jews were required to turn in their bicycles; Jews were forbidden to use streetcars; Jews were forbidden to ride in cars, even their own; Jews were required to do their shopping between 3 and 5 P.M.; Jews were required to frequent only Jewish-owned barbershops and beauty parlors; Jews were forbidden to go to theaters, movies or any other forms of entertainment; Jews were forbidden to use swimming pools, tennis courts, hockey fields or any other athletic fields; Jews were forbidden to go rowing; Jews were forbidden to take part in any athletic activity in public; Jews were forbidden to sit in their gardens or those of their friends after 8 P.M.; Jews were forbidden to visit Christians in their homes; Jews were required to attend Jewish schools, etc. You couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that, but life went on. Jacque always said to me, ‘I don’t dare do anything anymore, ’cause I’m afraid it’s not allowed.’…”

    We are referred to as “People of the book” by the Muslims. Have you read “Christianity is Jewish” by Edith Schaeffer?

    Dhimmitude: Soon coming to a city near you!

  4. We Americans have front row seats to see the decline of the American Republic. It truly has become an entity the founders had fought to defeat and replace with a God given form of government.
    The Oathkeepers motto is: “Not on our watch”. I have some rather bad news for them…….it is happening on their watch.
    Perhaps we will take up the fight to restore our country to it’s Constitutional foundation. The feeling of helplessness in the face of naked abuse of power by the three branches of the federal government can be breathtaking if you can see the instances of the abuse for what they really are.
    We have let those we elect run the country as “they” see fit and were slowly conditioned to accept this slow transformation from Republic to Federal Oligarchy. We have become psychologically atrophied and don’t know how to return our form of government using the twisted version of it to achieve the goal of restoration. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has refused on several occassions to address the obvious ineligibility of the President of the United States to hold that office…….how do we fight that?…….we are deer in the headlights. When mention is made of the Constitutional provisions for the citizenry to address this type of “velvet overthrow” of the federal government by the elitist political class…….I can guarantee you that if you try to avail yourself of these remedies, you will get put on some sort of DHS list. Just take a few moments and reflect on the truth of the previous statement.

    I believe that the next step the global elitists will take to achieve their goal of global government is to crash the world (actually in the beginning stages now) economy. These elitists are not socialists or any other type of political purists, they simply want to be in charge and have the good stuff for themselves…….it really is that simple. They just need us to do the work and less of us to feed.

    1. Constitutional Reset Upon Legislation By Excutive’s Code Of Federal Regulation.1-begins with a true to vote petition for redress of grievous felony to your govenor.2-petition must be tuned for your particular state constitution @ code.If your state has has FOI laws you can lawfully obligate the govenor to make a timely @ responsive reply,by asking for copy of that particular duty,authorized record of public law,that gives the sworn officer the authority to defy the law that involked his duty defied whenever he makes a undesired response,such as the sworn officer wouldnt be perpetrating a particular felony in doing so.WE THE PEOPLE,STATES,AND THE CONSTITION.

  5. I don’t have much to say as i am never printed in here so I do not count – I guess as an American patriot——-but i think that its time to start a campaign to oust all federal judges who refuse to hear cases on standing —–especially the supremes –isa tea party it that time——i know this will be like all the rest of comments I have made in the past –it won’t be seen by any one –but I have now once again given my opinion. EVERY ONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD —EVEN A FOOLISH AND IGNORANT ONE.
    Mrs. Rondeaun replies I see no problem with this comment, and I would certainly say that it is neither foolish nor ignorant. Sometimes comments are sent into the “Spam” folder accidentally. I would like to hear more from you.

    1. Mr. Hawki, there are NO Foolish or Ignorant Citizens–They are ALL in Government!!
      I write here occasionally and have had one Post bounced, and I was a little pointed in an assessment. The “Upon the Level, as Brothers, and Agree to Dis-Agree” idea will probably become revellant as this Vile, Fascist, Progressive Regime begins to feel the effects of the “FIREWALL” put in place as a result of the Nov. 02, Thrashing Mr. “O”‘s Stanglehold on our Nation~~we had an opportunity to “FLUSH” D.C., but 40%+/- “KOOL-AIDE DRUNKS” prevented that, so maybe there ARE some Ignorant ones out there, but maybe NOT You!!
      SEMPRE FI !!!

  6. How many times have you heard, “The country has its faults, but it’s still the best country in the world”…… Oh really? And what country would we be talking about?

    The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the writ of certiorari in the Kerchner vs Obama case has my head spinning! I don’t know what to think anymore. I don’t know what to believe. As a veteran, I took a lifetime oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but now, I question myself as to whether or not I still want to do that! Why should I? This is no longer the same Constitution as envisioned by our Founding Fathers! It’s been hijacked, corrupted, twisted and translated into something I certainly no longer recognize, so why would I want to protect and defend something I no longer believe in?

    I could have lived with the court’s decision simply to deny, but Justice Kagan’s and Sotomayer’s failure to recues themselves once again just throws a great big middle-finger salute to Americans. How long can this arrogance continue? It’s quite obvious that we’re not getting any support from any form of media. And it doesn’t appear we have anybody in Congress who’s doing anything, after all, they’re all just trying to cover their own butts. Did you notice that the only politicians who were threatening to challenge Obama’s eligibility were those who were running for office and none who were actually in office?

    Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision, I can’t seem to get the words of JFK out of my head, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” I think we have just about reached the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s rumored that Mr. Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner have spent over one million dollars attempting to resolve this issue peacefully, not to mention the costs incurred by Dr. Orly Taitz, Philp Berg and others who have relentlessly bulldozed litigation forward against every obstacle put in their path. How many peaceful resolutions are left? How much longer will the average American sleep before he’s awakened not by a subtle nudge of discontent, but the thunderous reality that America has slipped from Freedom’s shore and is sinking beneath the waves of Socialism while they were sleeping? Will it be too late? Is it already too late?

    I must assume, and may God Bless them ALL, that Mr. Apuzzo and the others will continue the fight, and I pray that they do. I also pray that God knows exactly what he’s doing and this little misstep is really just backing Obama deeper into a corner. I have to believe that or else I’ll go crazy! The blatant disrespect for the rule of law has got me into such a dizzy I don’t know when I’ll recover.

    All we can do is keep the faith and know that the judgment day is definitely coming. I have no idea in what form it will materialize, hopefully peacefully, but if it turns into a revolution, the Federal Government has no one to blame but itself.

    For God and Country

  7. Thanks Ron – great editorial.

    Unfortunately, many issues are linked together in this problem of the break-down of our constitutionally-based rule of law, but it seems to me that the foundation of a respect for the rule of law is morality. How can we have morality once religion has been discarded?

    We have a lot of hard work to do before we get this nation back on track. But it still comes back to the fact the very first order of business must be to solve the problem of a usurper in the White House. The continuing existence of this lawless situation is encouraging widespread dismissal of the the requirements and constraints of the Constitution, disrespect for the rule law, and a vacuum of leadership in this nation. The fact is that Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro no longer has a shred of credibility as the putative president and commander-in-chief, and will not have until he begins answering the questions being asked by millions of American citizens..

    How can the American people have any respect for an individual who claims to be the president and commander-in-chief, yet he stubbornly and persistently conceals his origins and his background. This is an outrage to the Constitution and an insult to every American patriot who ever fought for his country, going back to the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution.

    It is also resulting in historically unprecedented persecutions of those who ask the questions to which the people deserve answers. These persecutions, in various forms, have affected Pastor James David Manning, Dr. Orly Taitz, Attorney Leo Haffey, Major Stefan Cook, Captain Connie Rhodes, LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick, Broadcaster Lou Dobbs, and now LTC Terry Lakin. (One must also consider the possibility that Federal District Court Judge David O.Carter was subjected to a form of persecution sufficient to cause a man of demonstrated courage and devotion to the law to violate basic standards of judicial ethics in the Barnett case.)

    The fact that a decorated and dedicated military physician is now being court-martialed for simply asking for production of the documentation of Constitutional eligibility willingly and promptly produced by every previous president, and required to be produced by virtually every American citizen at some point in ordinary life, is beyond comprehension.

    This situation, together with the incredible denial by the military judge of Colonel Lakin’s right to present a valid legal defense, is so outrageous that it brings to mind the offenses against justice perpetrated by King George III that triggered the first American Revolution.

    While these injustices and breaches of the rule of law have been unprecedented, and while their historical significance cannot be overstated, they are curiously absent from mention in the very press that was designed by our Founders to protect the American people from such abuses. How can this be? Is this another alarming example of the shocking erosion of basic civic morality in this nation? Could anyone have imagined that national media figures like Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly would deliver outright falsehoods to the American people on national TV?

    My friends, I do not believe we have yet been able to properly and adequately express the sense of outrage and essential fear for the future of our nation that we are all feeling. Many people have tried – CDR Charles Kerchner, Lt Gen McInerney, Major General Vallely, Dr Orly Taitz, Pastor Manning, Dr. Kate, and many others have tried to arouse us to take meaningful action, but so far we been ineffective.

    I don’t have the answer, but I know that we need to do more. Our Constitution and our liberty are under threat like never before.

    For starters, perhaps we need to make known to this administration that a conviction of LTC Lakin will be unacceptable to the American people.

    1. Richard Nixon did not resign until hundreds, maybe thousands, of protesters marched around his bedroom at night carrying candles and loudly demanding his resignation. Is that form of expression even possible in America now? Let’s find out.

  8. @ Daniel

    so a baby, if it’s in the womb, has no right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    The killing of innocents is in the plan to subjugate democratic societies…by reducing their numbers. The birth rate in the United States is not enough to sustain us. We are an aging society.

    Do you really think the Founding Fathers anticipated that we would WANT to kill our unborn children??? And that they allowed for that in the Constitution?

    I think they believed in the sanctity and the miracle of life. They were hoping that future Americans would continue to “hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    This right to abortion is a terrible, terrible lie. You must look into its origins, and you must look into where it is leading us.

    How has this ONE ACT degraded and debased us as a free people? It is, and has been, the slippery slope.

    Do we have a right to destroy the Creator’s creation?

    1. I think I stand with the vast majority of Americans in that I believe that an embryo, although alive and human, is definitely not yet a person. I also think the vast majority would also stand by me in believing that a 7, 8 or 9 month along normal preborn baby most definitely is (a person).

      So many people seem to wish to treat the abortion issue as a simple, fixed point yes or no question, when, in fact, it is a continuum of gradually evolving questions. Starting from conception, normal human gestation runs for about 270 days. At one end we have a single living cell with its own unique human DNA – at the other, a fully formed baby.

      Roe v. Wade is flawed because it is predicated on privacy rights when the real question should be, “When does another person come into existence?” (one person’s right to life trumps another person’s right to privacy every time in my book).

      1. And because the continuum of development presents a continuum of evolving positions, I contend that, if there is to be a federal (or State) law, it should defer away from taking a position on anything but the clearly agreed on phases of the continuum, say the last month or 2.

        Beyond that, the principle of individual sovereignty of Citizens kicks in to say, that they, guided by their reason and faith, are best suited and guided to make the best decision.

        The goal of all is to minimize abortion, but it is not necessarily to be dictated in total by written law.

    2. My point was that at some time between the endpoints of conception and birth, abortion is not just a private decision affecting only the woman. At some level of maturity, a healthy, normal fetus becomes a person deserving the same basic rights and state protections accorded any other person – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (it’s no accident that life precedes the other two).

      The fundamental, key question of just when or over what range the fetal transition into personhood occurs is a matter of *opinion* that can only be rightly answered by polling the people. In that regard Roe v. Wade was a travesty of overreaching judicial fiat.

      I would suggest a national referendum on the single issue of abortion be placed before the people. As part of the referendum each side could present their best arguments (including a full graphic depiction of all the stages of fetal development). The people would then be asked two questions:

      1) At what point during gestation (from conception to birth) are you personally certain a fetus is not yet a person?

      2) And at what point are you certain it that it definitely is (a person)?

      People would mark the two points on a gestational time line.

      Beyond the point at which two thirds of the people consider the fetus to be an unborn child, abortion would generally be criminally investigated as any other murder (of course, the investigation could find mitigating circumstances, such as the true emergency need to preserve the life of the mother).

      Before the point at which two thirds of the people consider the fetus to definitely not yet be a person, abortion would be considered a private medical decision with which no State could interfere.

      Points in between would be left up to the individual States to decide.

    3. Generally speaking, pure democracy is little better than mob rule. Our Constitution, and the protection of individual rights it affords and the ideas and ideals it embodies, is what makes Americans special. Genetically we are no different than peons of any historical place or age suffering under the arbitrary rule of a despot. But our Constitution protects the rights of people, not potential people. So the question of how much further development (if any) it takes to make a newly fertilized, unique single human egg cell into a person is key to affording that possible, potential person rights and is very different than the questions surrounding “normal” ethnic cleansing or slavery or even end-of-life issues.

      I fully acknowledge that many people believe that it is the soul that confers personhood and that the soul enters the “body” upon conception. This is a matter of faith that can neither be proved nor disproved. And as horrible as it seems to you (and me), some people honestly believe that personhood begins only at birth. These conflicts are so contentious because they are unprovable matters of deeply felt opinion about which a general consensus is simply not possible.

      Would you foist your opinion upon others at the point of a government gun or have others do likewise to you? That is why I suggest the two thirds rule – because we would be giving opinion (albeit heartfelt, honest opinion on both sides) the full weight of the law. My method of dealing with the abortion issue is less than fully satisfactory, but all the other methods are even worse.

      I don’t know what the people would choose or where the two thirds boundaries would fall (perhaps they would both be at conception – and that would be perfectly fine by me).

      This is not a simple issue. — tw

    4. Abortion is not a medical procedure at all. Medicine is the healing art, and pregnancy is not a disease but the perfectly natural process of reproduction. Yet tax-payer dollars are now being used to murder perfectly healthy unborn human beings–when were they ever not human?– and more public money for abortion is on the way under Obamacare. Satan is pleased.

  9. The following graph from Dr. Kate’s blog piece, Roots of the Usurpation – 1913, shows with frightening clarity the unsustainable creeping growth of our out-of-control government over the last century.

    (Graph of government growth from 6 percent to 40 percent of GDP)

    Unchecked, this growth rate can only lead to collapse and financial chaos, so Mr. Ewart’s editorial is right on, our government must be reined in and reset in size back to the sustainable levels of a hundred years ago.

    Towards this end, Mr. Ewart suggests very necessary limits to government, in budget, laws and terms of elected service. But to put these excellent suggestions in terms that Congress and the President cannot circumvent, I fear we must be very explicit.

    The total federal budget, including all salaries, expenditures, debts, etc. must be limited by law (perhaps by amending the Constitution) to a fixed percentage of income /GDP. I would suggest no more than 10 percent. Of course, this would require massive federal job and program cuts, but that is precisely the point. While we’re at, maybe we should repeal the Sixteenth Amendment (the one which spawned the federal income tax) and require that all federal funding come directly and exclusively from the States. He who controls the purse strings…

    There also should be a “budget” to the total size of federal code (law). Once this limit has been reached, old law would have to be retired before further new law could be passed. I would suggest something like a limit of no more text than is contained within the Bible. As a side benefit of this type of legislative budget, laws would necessarily have to be crafted to be very clear and direct (so that even senators could easily understand what they are voting for or against before actually doing so).

    And of course, we must have very strict term limits for both houses of Congress. Mr. Ewart’s two term suggestion seems very reasonable to me. But I might also suggest two further changes as checks on corruption and on federal government power. Perhaps we should go back to having senators elected by the State legislatures (repeal the Seventeenth Amendment) and, something new, perhaps our representatives should be drawn and elected from something akin to a jury pool of 50 or so randomly selected Citizens from each district. This would ensure that we are represented by ordinary Citizens. One way this could work would be to have the group of 50 meet and select from themselves five who would then stand for general election by the People. Whatever the selection method, the idea would be to exclude professional politicians and get back to a government of the People for the People, very much in keeping with Mr. Ewart’s fifth principle that the preponderance of the people and those in government must be motivated by honor, integrity, honesty and morality.

  10. > Under FDR’s term in office, the U. S. Supreme Court was “twisted” from a conservative court to a liberal court

    Are you saying that somehow a “conservative court” is something better than a “liberal court”? Because “twisted” usually means “turned from better to worse” or “perverted into” in that context.

    SCOTUS should be a court that upholds the rights of We the People, not one that furthers a certain political agenda, be it “conservative” or “liberal” or other.

    In fact, that should hold for any court. Courts are supposed to be neutral, guided only by the law, logic and reason. “Conservative” and “liberal” assume diverging interpretations of these rules of law, logic and reason; they should not have a place in court.

    If I sue my neighbour over a contract, I do not want a “conservative” court to rule one way and a “liberal” court to rule the other.

    Same holds for SCOTUS and cases that involve “interpreting” the Constitution (which I think is pretty clear on all relevant issues).

    > A mockery was made of the Constitution, the Supreme Law…
    > then all other law, under the Supreme Law …

    Just to clarify, the Constitution itself says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”.
    People often forget that it is not just the Constitution which is “the supreme Law of the Land”.

    > the U. S. Supreme Court “invented law” (Roe vs. Wade) out of whole cloth when they decreed that the legal right to an abortion was protected by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers would be aghast at this decision by the high court.

    But wouldn’t you agree that, since the Constitution is above ordinary law, all laws (in this case, the one outlawing abortion) must be weighed against the provisions of the Constitution? You can disagree on the result of this weighing, but the process itself is beyond reproach since obviously the Constitution could not have specific provisions for all rights it acknowledges for We the People, so its generic provisions need to be interpreted for every single case.

    However I agree with your opinion that lawmaking which is only meant to further the agenda of a small clientele or a lobbyist group, with utter disregard for the majority, is something we need to stand up against.