Until the last few decades, the Constitution was held in relative reverence by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including the politicians and those seeking to become such. The basis of this reverence was the uniqeness and exceptionalism of that document and its obvious success at its purpose of promoting the standard of life and individual liberties apparent in America.

Those delegates who comprised the convention held in 1787, met for the purpose of revising and ammending their confederation’s constitution to make it possible for that confederation to succeed in the tasks that it had been created to perform. No authority to collect taxes, enforce laws of the union, regulate the actions between states, all rendered that confederation impotent leaving the people vulnerable to those perils the union intended had been created to avoid.

The Federal Convention of 1787 was called with great expectations. But even before the first meeting of that convention problems arose that would portend the mood of the next three months. Having been scheduled to convene on May 14, there were only five states whose delegates had arrived by that date. Not being a majority number, they were forced to await the arrival of more delegates. It was not until the 25^th that enough of the delegates to constitute a majority of states were present. This, also, had been a major factor in the decision to hold the convention in the first place, the lack of participation in the business of the confederation had made the acts of doing its work impossible most of the time.

Once convened, the problems continued. The failure of some delegates to conduct the business of the convention in accordance with the established protocols caused delays and excited emotions serving to build animosities between the delegates. Any hope for a solution resulting from common need, unity in purpose, national pride, or sense of duty was dashed. Instead, dissension, paranoia, self interests, and jealousy all plotted to divide the convention against itself and send the delegates home with no solution to their needs.

Having rid themselves of a destructive and tyranical king, the states of America had a huge pride in their independence and self reliance. That all of them had instituted state legislatures and constitutions were testimony to that insistance on self determination. That need for freedom from excessive intervention on their lives was carried into the convention where it was met with an opposing philosophy on what was required in a central or national union. There were present men who were educated and experienced in the means of government who held the belief that no two authoritative entities could suffer the existence of the other. In their minds it was not the way governments were known to operate effectively. The main authority, they contended, had to be sovereign and its powers absolute. Any lesser bodies must exist only for those small and insignificant purposes to which the main body had no compunction to address. Mr. Randolph, Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. Mason were among these.

Over the life of the convention proposals for ammendments to the confederation’s constitution, and for replacing that with a new more effective construct were many and varied. A system of, by, and for the people was not even imagined at first.

Mr. Randolph of Virginia had proposed a plan to be used as a template for constructing a national union. It came to be known as the Virginia Plan. It was the object of most of the debate during the convention. Its articles and clauses were not agreeable to all.

The insistance of many for a government sensitive to the wants and desires of the individual and the separate states was met with equal demands for a strong, all powerful central authority. Motions were made by both factions only to have them rejected and previously rejected proposals resubmitted. Days, even weeks were spent on minute but relative details such as who would choose the members of the second legislative body, what would be the term of service for the executive magistrate, how many executives would there be, what would be the powers of the legislature, and what power would the states have over the main government.

There was never a moment during the convention that could be said to be a turning point. No man stood and spoke to the difficulties and inspired cooperation. No changing of a mind from its cherished ideals was evident. Rather it was because these men had the differences they did that the Constitution is what it is.

Objections to a particular clause, sentence or words of the plan were considered and the mind of the convention on it was determined. According to that determination the objection was ignored or a solution sought. With only the dedication to their purpose and the willingness to make small but reciprocal changes, the Constitution took shape as a unique document in governmental history, providing both a powerful and effective federal government capable of supplying the services needed by the individual states, and, at the same time, insuring those inalienable rights of individuals would not be trod upon. While granting powers to the main body, the states retained the residual powers to themselves. Due to hard work, a commitment to their purpose, and a love of freedom the convention had, amazingly, produced a result generally accepted by all.

If viewed in the perspective of the attitudes presnt in the beginning versus the same in the end, it is obvious that a maturing had occurred in many delegates. It is also apparent that a conciliatory nature had been fostered in the personalities of those who had been arrogantly confident in their formal knowledge and a realization by them that they were, in this endeavor, making history. Mr. Hamilton is particularly evident of this evolving nature.

On September 15, 1787, with a few members still having objections to several items, the motion to put the draft of the constitution to a vote for approval was made and seconded. The vote was unanimous among the states with only a few delegates in the negative.

It was then ordered that the document be professionally engrossed.And they adjourned

Monday, September 17, the engrossed Constitution was read. Benjamin Franklin then rose to speak.

Having been a consistant source of moderation and a voice of the people, Benjamin Franklin was aware of what they had accomplished and the obstacles they had overcome. Knowing the nature of men, he offered the following to the convention…

He then made a motion that all the members sign the document and proposed the style of it.

Even then, after the Constitution had been voted on and approved, after the passionate request made by Franklin, there were those who still harbored a divisive nature. Mr. Randolph, who had provided the Virginia Plan which, when generously ammended, had become the Constitution, apologized for his refusal to sign the Constitution. He claimed that his refusal did not mean that he opposed it, but meant to keep his options free. He said that he believed the alternative which the Constitution provided to his original plan and the Articles of Confederation would not be acceptible to the people, as written. He had, despite the nature of the Virginia Plan, been among those who wished to diminish the power of states in defference to the federal government. Mr. Gerry also decided not to sign. He stated his belief that the inadequacies of the federal government would be the cause of a civil war, beginning in Massachusetts. Mr. Mason refused to sign and had given his reasons previously.

Mr. King then suggested that he journal of minutes should either be destroyed or given to Gen. Washington. He believed that if it were to become public it would be used for bad purposes by those who might become opponents of the ratification of the Constitution.

It was decided that the journal would be given to Gen. Washington to care for until a session of the new congress, if ratified, could decide on its future.

The members then proceeded to sign the document. Then, the Constitution being signed, the convention dissolved itself by an adjournment sine die.

The work of the convention had been tedious, and the outcome was still in doubt. A letter was written submitting the Constitution to the Congress of the United States and suggesting it be sent to all the states for ratification by a convention of delegates chosen by the people. It also suggested that as soon as the ratification by nine states had been secured, a day should be appointed on which the electors would assemble to choose the president of the United States, and the date chosen for the opening of the first session of Congress.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution minus the Bill of Rights.

On September 25, 1789, two years after the Constitution was signed, Congress submitted to the states twelve proposed ammendments. Two of those dealing with congressional pay and representation were never adopted. The remaining ten ammendments became known as the Bill of Rights when Virginia became the ninth state to ratify them on December 15, 1791.

The creation of the Constitution by men of so many differing ideals and aspirations, and the ratification of it by states of differing sizes and with opposing needs and priorities is only capable of being defined as being, E Pluribus Unum, in the truest meaning of it.

Glenn Flowers

There are many and assundry factors that have come together to cause the economic recession we are experiencing today. Deficit spending, excessive dependence on credit, governmental irresponsibility, and excessive taxation are typical examples. But there is one underlying, overpowering cause of the collapse of our economy and that is the ever increasing cost and decreasing supply of energy. Energy is essential to every aspect of life in America and is the one dominating factor in the endeavor to raise the standard of living for undeveloped regions of the world. The rise in standard of life and decrease in mortality rate of all humankind is directly proportional to the consumption of energy.

In a document prepared in 1991 by the Shura Council titled, An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, radical Islamic leaders lay out an ingenious, highly organized plan for the establishment of an effective Islamic state in the USA. No time frame is stated, and all of the "moderate" Muslim organizations embraced here in the US are listed as being key components to this plan.

It is a peaceful, stealthy plot, utilizing the arts, education, finance, politics, social groups, commerce, law enforcement, and all other aspects of life to bring about an Islamic Republic of North America.

Read it and be aware of its devilishly clever and covert methods, some of which have already been achieved. Read…

(1 Mb PDF file)

All over the internet, callers to talk radio shows, at the Tea Parties nationwide, in letters to editors, the People of the United States are expressing the fact that they have had enough of Obama’s theft of their earnings, and their grandchildren’s earnings. They are fed up with Obama labeling every bill he proposes as an emergency, citing major hardship and economic disaster if his policies are not passed immediately. The People are even more outraged at the fact that none of Obama’s policies are working, none of his policies seem to be designed for what they were meant to do, and, instead, are putting America on the path to third world nation status. Czars who have no responsibility to anyone but Obama, inspector generals illegally fired for doing their jobs, executive orders that bypass the powers of the legislative and judicial checks and balances, appointments of tax cheats, anti-constitutionalists, and even socialist and communist activists, all designed to promote Obama’s childhood dream, the de-construction of America as the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. Why does he endeavor to this goal? Because, he believes, America has become the great nation she is at the expense of all the poorer nations, black nations, and he wants economic and social justice. His followers and staff have only this to say to patriotic Americans: "We won, get used to it."

But, I beg to differ with Obama and his minions about their "winning". When they "won" what was probably a rigged, fraudulent election, Obama also swore an oath, legally binding, when he took office. He has, ever since January 20, 2009, ignored every word and the whole intent of that oath and is, therefore, in violation of at least three federal laws of the US Code and four or more articles and ammendments of the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

So. What do we do to fire him and the complacent and compliant Congress and Supreme Court? We, the People, do not have the authority to do anything regarding the federal government, and this is why. The Constitution was written for the People by the Constitutional Convention of Congressional delegates from the states. It was then ratified by delegates of the states. The Constitution had one purpose, to create and define the Federal Government known as the United States of America. The union was created by the states on behalf of the People. The federal government was not a party to the union, but is a result OF the union of the states. Therefore, only the parties to the union, the states, have any authority over the federal government. This is testified to in the writings of Jefferson and Madison in several instances.

To replace a federal government that has grown to be tyrannical, has created powers for itself it was never meant to have, has grown innefficient and has lost its support of the people, the legislatures of a majority of the fifty states must all agree to the nature of the tyranny and pass a resolution nullifying their creation, the United States of America, and reform that government according to the Constitution as originally written. Essentially, those states force the federal government out of business as is their right of creation.

To learn more on this subject see my earlier writings, Legal Procedures, Myths About the Constitution, Jefferson On State’s Rights, and To the Legislatures of the Fifty States.

Do your part as patriots and contact your state senators and Representitives urging them to participate in the Patrick Henry Caucus and force Washington to do our business or be fired.

Glenn Flowers

S. Fred Singer Ph.D (Monday March 3, 8:00AM Track 3)

S. Fred Singer Ph.D (Monday March 3 Luncheon Keynote)

Barun S. Mitra (Monday March 3, 4:00PM Track 4)

Vaclav Klaus Ph.D (Tuesday March 4, 7:00AM)

Paul Driessen, JD (Tuesday March 4, 8:45AM Track 3)

Barun Mitra (Monday March 9, Session III Track 4)

Gabriel Calzada Ph.D (Monday March 9, Session IV Track 3)

S. Fred Singer Ph.D (Tuesday March 10, Session V Track 1)

Christopher Monckton (Tuesday March 10, Session VI Luncheon Keynote)

S. Fred Singer Ph.D (Panel 1: Science)

Rep. F. James Sesenbrenner (R-WI) (Panel 2:Economics)

Gabriel Calzada Ph.D (Panel 2:Economics)

Bob Carter, Hon. FRSNZ (Panel 3: Science)

Ben Lieberman (Panel 4:Economics)

Lord Christopher Monckton (Panel 4:Concluding Keynote)

Agenda 21 (40 Mb pdf)

100 videos on climate change science and economics (click on 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd Conference Link)

800 Scientists reject man made climate change (1.2 Mb pdf)

Now the people of your respective states find themselves under severe attack economically and socially, by that same organization, the USA, or federal government. We, the People of this country know that by ourselves, individually, we have but a small voice to try and effect any significant change. But, the people together, as states, have a voice Washington listens to. In fact, the states are the one voice that puts real concern into the minds of those elected federal officials. They know that the states created the Union, and they know that the states have the power, as representitives of the people, to replace them if they deemed it necessary.

I believe that the government in Washington has become so enamored with themselves and the power and money available that they need to be replaced and the Constitution restored, as written, as the law of the land. But, I also know that that is a drastic measure and is not likely to be taken seriously at this time.

The salvation of our way of life from destruction at the hands of the USA, viz. Obama, and his gang, rests solely with the legislatures of the fifty sovereign states. The resolutions passed by a few of the state legislatures, as associated in the Patrick Henry Caucus, would have a great and profound effect to bring about a realization of the people’s anger if a majority of the states passed similar, supporting legislation.

The speed at which the administration is acting to spend all the wages of future generations, pass laws that deny the people of their individual rights, dismantle the market economy, and gather unto themselves power and rights never meant to be theirs, demands that we, the people, act with similar speed and with the required authority of the state legislatures if the American way of life is to be preserved. There is no abundance of time, no margin for extended thought and consideration of lesser measures. The priorities of the government are setting the schedule.

The Patrick Henry Caucus, a forum of state law makers meeting to discuss actions they can take to alleviate the problems caused by the federal government, is the only such action being taken that I know of. It can, if supported by a majority of state legislatures, stop the demolition of this great nation and restore the Constitution to its rightful authority as the law. I urge all fifty state legislatures to contact the Utah state legislature for further information on the Patrick Henry Caucus, and to join with them to save America before it’s too late.

If it becomes necessary to take actions such as Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence, and replace our elected government officials; a resolution would be required to nullify the agreement between the states and federal government. A majority of the fifty states would have authority to accomplish that task.

If you have any reservations as to where the US Armed Forces stand on the Constitution, I suggest you visit http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

I have taken the liberty of drafting a template, simple as it is, that could be the starting point for such a resolution. I do not flatter myself by believing it to be required as yet, nor do I believe it to be totally sufficient for such work, but intend to offer it only for your consideration if needed for such a purpose.

We, the People, now find ourselves in danger of having our liberties and wealth destroyed as independent and free people of these seperate states, by that very association which we entered into for the purpose of protecting our common interests from just such a tyranny as has become the United States of America.

By engaging in these actions without even once considering the will of the people, the officers of the Federal Government have committed gross acts of sedition against the true power of We, the People, have violated that solemn oath taken by them to protect and defend our Constitution, and have violated the word and intent of most every article, clause, and section of that document of union. This is not only bad governance, it is criminal activity.

Therefore, the following has been ratified by the majority of the legislatures of the several states and is, thus, made the applicable law by resolve, rendering the Constitution, as pertains to that Federal Governing body now existing, temporarily null and void of authority and causing it to be, no more, the law of the land.

To the furtherance of this cause it is:

Our federal government has taken upon itself powers never authorized, and with that have subjected the people of the nation to great harm, destroying the economy and the very nature of our society, and severely diminishing the wealth and general welfare of the people.

It has become necessary and of immediate need, to insure the survival of these sovereign states, to render the alliance to the Federal government non-existant and to, thereby, dissolve that created by the people of the states known as the United States of America.

It is only with these state legislatures that that authority rests as the creators of that Government. Therefore, if and when that central organization is no longer required, it becomes destructive in its nature, the people decide it to be ineffective and needs to be revised or replaced, only these state legislatures, having been the initiator and creator of that government for its own purposes and that government having no validity without the pleasure of these states and their people, have the authority to break those bonds voluntarily entered into. They can assert this authority over the Federal Government

regardless of objection or resistance from any source within the USA as the Constitution stipulates causing it no longer to be the law of the land as far as the present officers of the USA are concerned.

These legislatures of the several states, constituting a majority thereof, hereby declare all elected and appointed officers of all three branches of the Federal Government of the United States of America, excluding those continual employees not a party to the administration, Congress, or judiciary, to be in violation of the terms of their service, as sworn to by them, and are, hereby, terminated and removed from office as provided for in the Constitution of the United States. This ends the alliance of states with that government.

Resolved: We, the People of the states of America, retain the right of authorship, ownership, and any and all privileges of the titles, "The United States of America", and the, "The Constitution of the United States of America", for whatever future usage or purpose we see a need of or deem worthy. No officer, present or former, shall have any claim or right to these titles or to any resulting trademark.

Taking into account the blatant corruption and elitist attitude of all members of Congress regardless of party; when it is understood that their refusal to obey the Constitution is intentional and without regard for We, the People; when voters realize that a total replacement of Congress is necessary; the primary elections of 2010 become far more important than the 2010 general election.

With the people of the nation facing the loss of their freedoms as Americans, and dis-satisfaction with government’s leadership growing rampantly, next year’s congressional primaries represent the first chance for voters to fire those who have failed to protect our constitution by electing new officials from both parties who might actually work to save America from the ruin it is racing toward.

American voters of every party have become angry and disgusted with the willful rebuke handed them by their representitives and senators. Whether it was action causing the shortage and high prices of gasoline, increased taxation, more entitlements to special interests, expensive and illegal earmarks, partisan opposition to what is the people’s best interests, calls for responsible government, dictatorial rule changes by committee and party leaders, blatant waste and outright theft of the people’s taxes, the outrageous and illegal expansion of government authority and size, responsibility for the economic crisis, outrageous and destructive laws in favor of petty environmental excuses, or myriads of other stupid, selfish, illegal, and harmful acts against American voters, we have all become victims of the greed, arrogance, and lack of any responsibility for their actions or to the people by congressional incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

The people have come to the realization that drastic measures are called for, and that they alone are willing or able to what is required to end the tyrannical march toward oppression and change the course of America back toward freedom, greatness, and a future of happiness for our grandchildren. We, the People, have the duty and, for a decreasing time, the ability to pull this country out of the consuming flames fanned by a corrupted congress of professional politicians and radical socialist influences.

We, the American voters of both parties, can win any election we want to if we all vote for the same basic goal. Democrat and Republican voters, if banded together for America, could numerically dominate any election in a big, BIG way. Agreeing with each other on the immediacy of major changes in Congress and realizing there is no need to change affiliation or vote for the opposite party, we Americans can and must unite in a Voter’s Revolt to replace all the evil liars on Capitol Hill and insure none of them ever have the chance to fleece us again.

The 2010 congressional primary election is where this unity must take place. We must not allow the incumbent members of Congress from either party to advance to the general election. If they win the primary and become a candidate in the general election again, they can outspend a rival of the opposite party and call on those flunkies who owe them favors to insure they are re-elected again. We, the voters of both parties, must all make the commitment to change the names on the ballot for the general election to new, fresh names. The incumbent members of Congress need to wake up the morning after the primary votes have been cast and counted and find themselves out of the race completely.

We can’t fail to act if we are to remain free. We can’t wait until the general election if we want a new congress. To unite as democrats and republicans and be successful, it is the primary where we must act.

It isn’t hard to do, we just need to agree that it is necessary if we are to continue as free people. Make the decision to unite with all Americans and vote in the 2010 primary. Make the commitment not to re-elect any incumbent as your party’s candidate for office. It is, most probably, the last chance for us, the voters, to save our American way of life.

Glenn Flowers

The Ninth and Tenth ammendments to the Constitution have always been considered by the People as being a guarantee against an abuse of power by the federal government. They read as follows:

They seem to be fairly straight forward and unambiguous in what they say. As I read them, the federal government can not exercise any power not given to it by the Constitution, and if it is not given there the states or the people retain those rights for themselves. The government has only the powers spelled out, and no more. That is the way I believe most people would interpret them.

But, as is the case with most questions of points of law, there have been court decisions that have supported a simple interpretation, and rulings that take a more creative and complex approach in interpreting meaning. The acceptance and application of one or the other of these methods by a current court is not consistent but wavers to and fro over time and is the cause of much or all ignorance and confusion on the subject.

There exists precedent that allows the feds to assume powers not granted to them, as well as precedent preventing any use of power not specifically granted. On one hand, the last paragraph of Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power to, "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

That paragraph has been used by the courts to give Congress powers not specifically enumerated. On the other hand courts have made decisions based on a simple and strict reading of these ammendments such my opinion above. The people have no way of knowing these opposing precedents exist, but even if they did, they could not be confident in any court ruling a certain way because there is legal standing for the courts to rule this way or that.

The existence of precedents supporting opposing rulings renders these two ammendments meaningless. This is the case with all the limitations and grants of powers to the federal government written into the Constitution. The courts have an open buffet of past decisions on every question, custom made for whatever situation arises.

If I had the opportunity to propose a single ammendment to the Constitution, I would propose that there be a grand jury type civilian review of all SCOTUS decisions. This jury would be selected randomly and neither the SCOTUS nor the jury would know, before hand, the duty they were being dealt, and this duty would not be divulged until they had completed their work. If, in the future, the decision of that jury was found to be in contention with the Constitution, the previous decision would be superceded rather than be allowed to coexist.

The coexistence of opposing rulings as precedent renders the entire Constitution useless.

Glenn Flowers

To study this subject, an annotated copy of the Constitution is essential. After each article, section, or clause, there is an explanation of that section and those cases and decisions that have had an effect on that section and its everyday meaning.

These annotations are, sometimes, extensive and in some cases ridiculously so. Example: After quoting just the first sentence from Article One, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Satates, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representitives," there is over 80 pages dealing with decisions by federal courts, classes of decisions, the effects of these decisions, challenges, and the meaning for everyday citizens. EIGHTY PAGES for one sentence. This should have been an indication of things to come. The annotoations for Article One required 374 pages.

It is evident that no single blog post will be sufficient, nor would anything short of something similar to the extensive annotations. It is with this in mind that I decided to give a summary of how the Constitution has been rendered meaningless.

Much of what made the Constitution unique and our government as eduring as it has been is the seperation of powers of the three branches of government. The idea behind this seperation was simple: No one branch would have total or near total authority. The checks and balances built into the government were supposed to prevent the creation, enforcement, and ejudication of the law from being done by one branch, thus preventing conflicts of interest and the creation, essentially, of a dictatorial single branch.

The annotations for Article One begin with this sentence, "The Constitution nowhere contains a express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances."

It goes on citing a series of articles by James Madison where he proclaimed that, "the doctrine (of seperation of powers) did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or control over, the acts of each other," but that, "liberty was endangered where the whole power of one is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another." Neither sharply drawn demarcations of boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient. Instead, the security against concentration of powers "consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others." Ambition was to counteract ambition.

It was this slight chink in the armor of seperation of powers that has given the federal courts the excuse to render decisions that have, in their entirety, given each branch the power of the other branches where and whenever the court or that branch decides it must weild that power. The doctrine of non-delegation of powers, judicial enforcement of seperation of powers, the expressed limitation on the powers of Congress, State’s Rights, and all other sections of the Constitution have been made either less powerful than intended or outright meaningless by this one corruption of the seperation of powers.

Two of the many court decisions endorsing this corrupted view of seperation of powers are:

McCullough v Maryland 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 407

17 U.S. at 411

17 U.s. at 421

Justice Marshall declared "the power declared by the ‘necessary and proper’ clause embraces all legislative means unless forbidden by the letter and spirit of the Constitution." This refers to the Constitution stating that Congress has the power to make any law "necessary and proper" to carry out its expressed duties. This decision states that any means necessary to pass a law is covered by that "necessary and proper" statement.

American Insurance v Canter 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828)

26 U.S. at 542

26 U.S. at 543

The same Justice Marshall wrote that, "the Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war, and treaties; consequently that government possesses the power to acquire territory and from it, the inevitable consequence of the right to govern it." This decision had the effect of granting to the federal government a power it had not been granted by the Constitution, opening the door for more "resultant and inherent powers" to become law.

To summarize, the courts in these decisions have repeatedly ascribed to the federal government powers that do not accord with the doctrines of seperation of powers, expressed limits on Congress, and State’s Rights as are plainly contained within the Constitution.

It seems to me that the Judicial branch, and subsequently the Executive and Legislative branches, lost no time in seeking to gain for itself, and the federal government as a whole, absolute power and sovereignty over the states and the people at every opportunity, going as far as to include in their reasoning corrupted mis-interpretations of the Constitution’s content meant to prohibit just such a gain and growth in the power of the federal government.

Imagine, that if just this single sentence from the Constitution has been so dis-emboweled, what lies in store for the balance of the limits on federal power included in the Constitution. It then becomes no mystery as to how and why our rights, as per the Constitution, seem to be of no accord to Congress, the President, or the courts.

Glenn Flowers