Monthly Archives: June 2015

Nullification – When Government Becomes Something Else?

Recent Supreme Court decisions have once again caused the reemergence of a longstanding conflict in search of a direct answer: What form of recourse is there or process in place to counter the actions believed to be Unconstitutional? In practical terms there isn’t a single one and the truth is, I believe it the best possible design.

There have been attempts to expand the options and one of the earliest was proffered by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Based on the assertion that States could deem any Federal Law (which, theoretically could include a Decision of a Federal Court being an extension of the Federal Gov’t) unconstitutional if outside the delegated authority prescribed by the Constitution. The idea was known as Nullification.

Posted in Poli-Philos | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What to Expect from Trade Deal Passage

Since 1992, with the passage of WTO, GATT, NAFTA & CAFTA, U.S. Domestic Economic Wealth (True Capacity), Inflation & Gov’t Spending Adjusted, has plummeted by 46 percent (conservatively calculated, depending on the economic components included in the calculation, it could be as high as 69.4).
With the passage of TPA & TAA you will see a rapid approval and passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Service Agreement (TiSA). Each of these three agreements are administered by third party commissions, like their predecessor Trade Agreements (which is why you have a “do nothing” Congress as there is little domestic range of authority remaining that doesn’t in some way come into contest with the external trade authority) vested with the authority to force suspension of any Domestic Law.
The only way out is to suspend U.S. participation which is not as easy as you might hope. Here’s what to expect over the next 5-10 years:
(1) Trade Authority used to void U.S. Immigration and alter Labor Laws.
(2) 25-30% reduction in labor participation rate as influx of “permitted-status” explodes to meet lower wage demands.
(3) Increase social disorder/conflicts along with the predictable growth in Gov’t Social Programs intended to meet demands of excised workers (unemployed) and mediate increasingly contentious social disorder.
(4) No beneficial changes to Corporate Tax code as “commission” deems this effort adverse to multi-nationals interests.
(5) Enforcement of globalized standards seen as integral to the consolidation of control over global property, product, resource, legal, economic, financial and ultimately the flow and application of human capital.
(6) Expansion of revenue-generating (tax) authority applicable to Individual/Private transactions (in addition to existing).
(7) Rapid population growth in Metro areas caused by increase in Gov’t dependency the effect of which will insure an irreversible establishment of a non-democratic voting block.
(8) Collapsing of the E.U. into the ward established by the TTIP which will then merge the administrative authority of the TPP into the same collective.
(9) As part of or as a precursor to item “8” you will see the suspension of all Sovereign National Debt with/to the IMF the purpose of which will be to preserve and revalidate the dominance of the Western Fractional Banking System; it will be made to appear as if it is the only viable alternative to a global economic collapse.
(10) Expect to witness the break-up of the Russian Federation and the emergence of multiple U.N./NATO aligned States.
(11) Communist China’s efforts to maintain its administrative control will fail as internal pressures resulting from a massive internal banking collapse, massive wealth-disparity, external manipulation of internal economic segments, to name a few, all of which will reveal that China is, and never was, the economic/military threat that had been reported; it will, like the former members of the Russian Federation, merge into the IMF-administered financial system.
(12) U.S. will re-establish a significant military/naval presence in/at its former bases in the Philippines.
This process, is, of course an inevitable evolution of a process started long ago and little, short of a comprehensive push-back by the American people (which unfortunately is unlikely) will not alter the course. To survive and prosper in this tumultuous age will require a firm and unyielding grasp of one’s sovereign individuality and know that the American Ideal is just that, an Ideal.
It is an elegant composition of the Divine’s ambitions never able to have been preserved by an inanimate entity (Government) which has no vested interest in its preservation; for you however it is an absolute necessity. You are, have been and will always be the single outlet thru which the Divine Ideal is expressed. Remember, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,…” understanding that Caesar was never able to survive outside of an ideal-Ideal which is precisely why all nations, ultimately, fail. They believe that their success entitles them to breach the fundamentals and as you know, no one escapes the consequences of having done so!
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: Doom and gloom? Absolutely NOT! It’s an exciting time full of unlimited opportunities to evolve past the state of mediocrity. Sure, the change-over is going to be unsettling for many however, the predators will ultimately be rewarded their just rewards. It’s important to know what’s being done so that one can orientate themselves in the appropriate direction!
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
Posted in Geo-Poli, Poli-Econ, Poli-Philos | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Casts Yet Another Spell

With regard to the Courts Same-Sex decision there are, indeed, a great many points to find offensive, but none greater than the following two:
(1) The Courts application of the 14th Amendment has now been given a meaning never imagined by those who wrote it. Have we now created a third sex or is it now an entirely new race?
(2) The Constitutional Principal of Unalienable Right has been completely upset. Where once, prior to today’s decision, an Unalienable Right was of an Omniscient Source and/or expressed by the representative will of the people, it is now only to be selectively awarded by the Judicial process.
Carving out wildly exotic interpretations to suit an agendized temporal impulse may be a titillating form of entertainment for the fanatical secularist however, in the practice of Constitutional Law the mortar that binds its structure is in the consistency of both interpretation and application.
What the Court has done is craft a bitter brew that will ferment an intense divide. The matter should have been left to the domain of the States which is and was always the appropriate course of action. Now you’ve been blessed with National Divide; the marriage of ignorance and arrogance.
The following are a select group of responses to question/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: MJ: Unfortunately yours is a far too common a response by far too many people. What the Court did was issue a decision that is in complete conflict with The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment. This is what “get over it” disposition breeds. What no one seems to want to grasp is this decision tramples on, at the very least, 3 specific Constitutional principals which, by the way, are the very supports by which the Same Sex Marriage Argument rode on its way to the Supreme Court. It was and continues to be a state issue. One step deeper into the realm of autocratic rule and the answer is to “get over it?” 
MJ: Not, necessarily, an improper approach. The challenge though is that if the Court acts consistent with “a beginning” approach then there are no boundaries, for those who are subject to their decisions, whereby their actions might be contained. I don’t believe, and I suspect you’d agree, that the Court should ever be permitted to be a substitute for Individual/Personal Discretion. To force acceptance of another choice, one that is completely discretionary, on another is a supreme example of tyranny. As Abraham Lincoln said in response to the question of slavery: “As I would not be a slave, I would not be a slave master.” The Constitution is, at its best, the mechanism by which different parties of different interests can be kept from oppressing the other. It is not nor was it ever intended to be a tool to be used, government process (the Law), to affect the opposing interests of one to the detrimental effect of the one made to kneel. Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to post!
#2: The “Why” rests in “Understanding.” Whether you know it or not you are at the nascent aperture of an issue that is going to be hotly contested and primarily so due to the fact that many will soon discover a similarity in the manner in which the Supreme Court dealt with the current decision, that of the Roe vs. Wade. A lapse in the publics interest or the miss-characterization, qualitatively speaking, of the same was deemed a revolutionary change in public sentiment when clearly that was and remains never to have been the case. When the public speaks in terms of (sentiment) “live and let live” it is not nor has it ever been the domain or rightful discretion of the Court to enforce an individuals concept of what defines their notion of “live and let live” upon or over another. Most particularly thru the force of interpretation by another man whether clocked in a robe, from a pulpit, from the legislative floor or from the Office of the Nation or any States Chief Executive.
#3: Its 27 pages, but I can think of no better use of ones time than to read at least one of the Courts Dissenting (Robert, C.J.) Opinions. The following is a link to an online PDF which contains all of the opinions however, I suggest, for pure and acute Constitutional reference, that you begin with page 40 (pdf page mind you and not the individual “brief” pages) with Roberts dissenting opinion and then, if you’ve the stomach for it, go to the plurality of Kennedy’s contrasting expose.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
Posted in Poli-Philos | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Roberts Court; the Ultimate Constriction

Well certainly not the outcome expected, one would have thought that the constitutional rule of “apportioned” would have been the only test required to render the “subsidies” (King v. Burwell) a dead issue. Having read the court’s opinion and its rambling and esoteric thought process it’s fairly clear that given the current tenor of the court no challenge, to any law, will have a favorable outcome.

It may also be the case that counsel must do a better job crafting arguments given the situationally-flaccid Justices. It’s absolutely appropriate to repel judicial activism however, in the case of the Supreme Court, I’d argue that is exactly the purpose of the court. The appellate jurisdiction where insuring that constitutional relevance and/or standards are to be upheld.

Posted in Poli-Philos | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trade Authority; Stealth Deceptions from Within!

Senate Republicans, and (it appears) House Republicans are expected to follow suit, have demonstrated that the only event to occur with a greater speed than their oath of office is their ability to violate it! Senate Republicans have tendered their willingness to surrender Congressional Authority to the Executive Branch (on its own an act that violates the constitutional principal known as “separation of powers”).

Posted in Poli-Philos | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment