I highly recommend "A Less Perfect Union" by Alan Freedman.

Mr Freedman demonstrates that most of the US government as it exists
today has no support in the Constitution. Of course, the true test of
another person's intelligence is the degree to which s/he agrees with you
(WEB Griffin).

There are, for instance, nearly 5,000 crimes against the national
government, only four of which are authorized in the Constitution.
Likewise there are half a million or so regulations that carry criminal penalties, and none of them have any support in the Constitution
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

Re: Another book
By: BOB ACKLEY to ALL on Wed Apr 04 2018 11:09 am

I highly recommend "A Less Perfect Union" by Alan Freedman.

Mr Freedman demonstrates that most of the US government as it exists
today has no support in the Constitution. Of course, the true test of another person's intelligence is the degree to which s/he agrees

with you

(WEB Griffin).

There are, for instance, nearly 5,000 crimes against the national government, only four of which are authorized in the Constitution. Likewise there are half a million or so regulations that carry criminal penalties, and none of them have any support in the Constitution

I was actually talking about this with a Mexican friend about the

difference

between expressed powers of the constitution and so called "Implied".

The Constitution doesn't "imply" anything. What's happened is that the
control and power freaks that gravitate to government positions have
invented the concept in order to increase their own power and influence.

That famous "interstate commerce" clause was put into the Constitution
because, under the Articles of Confederation, states could and did enact tariffs on products entering and leaving them (i.e. "interstate
commerce") and the provision was put into the Constitution to put a stop
to the practice - and for no other reason. Today, that clause has been "interpreted" to give the national government omnipotence over every
facet of American life; the Supreme Court even ruled that not engaging in commerce at all was engaging in "interstate commerce" (Wickard v
Fillburn, 1942).

This country had a "federal" government until Abraham Lincoln destroyed
the Constitution in 1865. What ol' Abe did was convert - using raw
military force - the United States of America into the United State of
America. Whatever was left over after Lincoln was finished off by Thomas (Woodrow) Wilson (1913-21), Roosevelt minor (1933-45) and "landslide
Lyndon" (1963-69). The 16th Amendment to the Constitution allowed the
national government to deal directly with citizens instead of working
through the state governments and the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators, which had been elected by the state legislatures) removed any remaining state influence in the national government.

The

Federal gov't bases many of the rules and laws on some obscure

interpretation

of the actual law established in the constitution. I fear that they

will use

these laws against your average Joe

They can, they have, and they do
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

On 04/06/18, Jamie Badillo said the following...

Re: Another book
By: BOB ACKLEY to ALL on Wed Apr 04 2018 11:09 am

I highly recommend "A Less Perfect Union" by Alan Freedman.

Mr Freedman demonstrates that most of the US government as it exists today has no support in the Constitution. Of course, the true test of another person's intelligence is the degree to which s/he agrees with y (WEB Griffin).

There are, for instance, nearly 5,000 crimes against the national government, only four of which are authorized in the Constitution. Likewise there are half a million or so regulations that carry criminal penalties, and none of them have any support in the Constitution

I was actually talking about this with a Mexican friend about the difference between expressed powers of the constitution and so called "Implied". The Federal gov't bases many of the rules and laws on some obscure interpretation of the actual law established in the
constitution. I fear that they will use these laws against your average Joe JAMIE BADILLO
OF EL PASO, TX

That's how it starts isn't w/ fear, which is a emotion, then people revolt against such fear. Protecting themselves from what they sincerely believe is
to be a strong possibility of bad things are coming. Next a fierce attitude of defiance is established, almost instantly the Democratic party is there to poor gas on the fire and it's off to the races from there.

Remember hands up don't shoot? that was also based on fear. It (hands up don't shoot) never happened it was nothing more than hearsay that grew into something very ugly, it was nothing more then a rumor that some thug started.

Btw, there is nothing obscure or interpretive concerning the enforcement of
our laws for our nation. Furthermore there is nothing wrong in protecting, enforcing or even defending the sovereign nation of the United States of America.

. ______
_()_||__||
( Gregory |
/-OO-----OO'

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A39 2018/04/21 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS (1:267/150)