It seems according to the ongoing news reports (over a month now) of the BP disaster that the solution the federal government has come up with in order to hold BP accountable for the latest contamination of U.S. waters and fiscal impact on the American public is to hold another public tongue lashing at the public's expense, however, for this foreign based global corporation.
These hearings and special Congressional panels are beginning to mimic the old "Who's on First" routines of the slapstick era.
According to Fox New USA, an affiliate in a great deal of their political ideology and programming with BBC Worldwide, the solution to addressing the problem of the continuing oil spill is for this global corporation to get permission from the U.S. government to drill two more wells, in order to "relieve" the pressure on the well that was involved in this explosion.
Sounds like a real economic stimulus for the British at the cost of Americans once again to this writer - since a great many of those jobs (other than those of the manual labor variety) which will be provided for these new wells will, of course, go to more Brits and/or British subjects.
The fundamental question to this disaster has not been approached by the media it seems in any meaningful way.
And that is, while the U.S. is now involved in a War on Terrorism that just so happens to be focused more and more on developing a greater presence in the Middle East in order to secure many of those oil barons future wealth and prosperity, why is it that the U.S. then is giving "mineral rights" to foreign global corporations such as British Petroleum to the American oil reserves?
In other words, Britain is obtaining access to the oil reserves of the United States for primarily its citizenship's gasoline and petro needs, while the U.S. citizens are paying higher rates for those barrels that are now being imported from the Middle East?
No wonder the United States is facing its largest recession since the Great Depression in the 20's.
The British aren't simply coming, they are here, and this appears to be an economic war we are fighting with both its bankers, and its government.
Just who or what is BP?
British Petroleum until fairly recently was a holding of the British royal family, although it was "officially" privatized. From Britannica Encyclopedia Online Edition:
British Petroleum:
"British petrochemical corporation. Formed in 1909 as the Anglo-Persian Oil Co., Ltd., to finance an oil-field concession granted by the Iranian government to William Knox D'Arcy, it became one of the largest oil companies in the world, with oil fields and refineries in Alaska and the North Sea. The British government was for many years BP's largest single stockholder, but by the late 1980s it had turned over the company to private ownership. In 1987 BP consolidated its U.S. interests by acquiring the Standard Oil Co. In 1998 it merged with Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana) to form BP-Amoco. In addition to oil and natural gas, it produces chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibres. Its headquarters are in London."
It will be interesting watching these "hearings," and seeing eventually who will be left holding the bag for the "global economy" once again in this respect.
I'll bet it will be the American taxpayers, in one way or another.
Either for those salaries for this "special panel" and the lost revenue of the American people for this monumental "taking" by Britain of America's mineral rights, or through taxation for the sums that the American public will have to pay in additional gasoline prices across the board for the decades long cleanup of the Gulf Coastline for the "jobs and the economies" of mostly the resident aliens that will be involved from Britainnia.
No wonder also that there is such a push to get an amnesty passed, for that cheap Mexican labor and/or military service for the British Empire's needs both here and abroad.
With Mexico assuming the American border states progressively, and Britain once again with a strong presence in Louisiana and the Canadian border states, it appears that a great many Americans may be fleeing to Kansas, along with Dorothy.
Except that even in the heartland of America, foreigners and foreign interests have gained a foothold.
Since Kansas also has a nuclear generator and reactor whose shares are now sold over that "global" exchange, as do 31 other U.S. states which have also monumentally comprised this nation's national security, on behalf of that "global economy," placing commerce, once again, before the fundamental precepts behind that Constitution.
Whose government continues to sacrifice U.S. lives and property on behalf of foreigners interest at a greater clip by the decades, as the body counts mount.
Wonder if there will be any criminal manslaughter or criminal negligence filed against those Brits.
Don't hold your breath, America, since the sovereign London bankers and British government, those allies, are clearly calling the shots on this one, as they have PROGRESSIVELY with each Administration and Congress since Wilson.
Showing posts with label hearings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hearings. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sotomayor On Applying The Law
Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.
These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."
She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?
It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.
With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.
In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.
Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.
And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.
Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.
For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.
I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.
And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.
As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.
I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.
I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.
I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.
It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.
She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."
And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.
These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."
—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."
She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?
It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.
With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.
In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.
Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.
And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.
Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.
For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.
I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.
And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.
As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.
I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.
I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.
I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.
It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.
She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."
And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
