[CTRL] Sovereignty or Free Trade.
-Caveat Lector- NYTimes April 23, 2001 News Analysis: Biggest Obstacle to Selling Trade Pact Is Sovereignty By DAVID E. SANGER QUEBEC, April 22 Midway through President Bush's first summit meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he was unfazed by the raucous demonstrations that greeted the 34 leaders trying to turn the Western Hemisphere into a single market. An old infantryman always remembers what tear gas and pot smell like when you walk in the barracks, he joked with reporters, recalling his days as a young Army officer. But for Mr. Bush's new administration, the odors may be the only familiar element of a brew of street protests, domestic politics and foreign policy that merged this weekend at the Summit of the Americas. The meeting represented the third try in seven years to create a giant free-trade alliance from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego. As Mr. Bush found, a lot happened at the intersection of trade and politics in the eight years when the Republicans were out of the White House. When Mr. Bush's father left office the term globalization had barely entered the lexicon. Nafta the North American Free Trade Agreement was still under negotiation. The Seattle protests of 1999 were six years away. So starting this weekend, the new president found himself playing what his predecessor once called the three-dimensional chess of trade. He knows he must respond to the swelling emotions on the street that captivate the television cameras, at the same time addressing the fears of developing nations that the Free Trade Area of the Americas is a neutral-sounding term for an imperialist world in which the United States sets the rules and gets the benefits. And more immediately, Mr. Bush must deal with a Congress that is so divided on trade that it is unclear whether the president will get the authority he would need to negotiate the pact he came here to promote. Nor is it obvious how much political capital Mr. Bush will expend on trade in a year when tax cuts and education are higher on his agenda. Mr. Bush brushed that aside today when, appearing with several Latin American leaders and the prime minister of Canada, Jean Chrtien, he made his bottom-line case for the trade pact. In a comment unlikely to strengthen his friendships among America's European and Asian allies, he said he was focusing on a regional accord so that we can combine in a common market so we can compete in the long term against the Far East and Europe. And he revived one of President Clinton's favorite arguments, that democracy and American-style capitalism are now intertwined. In fact, the communique issued today states that any country in the hemisphere that suffers an unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order will be banned from negotiations over a free trade area. Turning such lofty principles into a real agreement will be a complex task. The biggest problem comes down to one word: sovereignty. The protesters on the street had any number of complaints. Some came to argue that free trade puts the interests of industry ahead of the environment, or that it does nothing to assure that workers get higher wages and the right to unionize, or that it concentrates wealth in the hands of the rich. They said Nafta, which Mr. Bush repeatedly cited as the model for the hemisphere, was actually a disaster for the people who work for low wages in the factories on the Mexican-United States border and for the environment. But among the serious critics of free trade accords, the fundamental problem is that they have no control over the forces that set environmental or labor rules. And they believe that they have been excluded from setting those rules, a feeling reinforced by a recent report by the Leadership Council for Inter-American Summitry, a group of academics and economists. It concluded that the gap between summit promises and accomplishments is so wide as to have created a public crisis of confidence. Mr. Bush said today that he hoped to address that concern by publishing the text of the lengthy document that will eventually form the basis of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The idea is to answer charges that such accords are written in secret. But Mr. Bush made clear that he would not be deterred, and his tone all weekend conveyed the sense that he was willing to entertain ideas about protecting workers or the environment, as long as they did not slow the pace of commerce. There are some people in my country that want to shut down free trade, he said. And they're welcome to express their opinions. But, he added, it's not going to change my opinion about the benefits of free trade. Sovereignty, though, is not only a worry on the street. It is a concern among Latin America's elected leaders as well, and several made clear that they planned to proceed with enormous care. Brazil's president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, showed no more enthusiasm for a quick free trade area than
[CTRL] Sovereignty no match for WTO
.. From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]: From: Lloyd Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sovereignty no match for WTO Date: Sunday, June 25, 2000 6:01 AM From: Howard Rothenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SNET: Sovereignty no match for WTO Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:04:20 -0700 PRINTABLE - SNETNEWS Mailing List Sovereignty no match for WTO JUNE 23 2000 By Henry Lamb =A9 2000 WorldNetDaily.com The debate surrounding the proposal by Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, to withdraw from the World Trade Organization, revealed a wide chasm between the fundamental beliefs of the people who represent us in Congress. Paul says that our participation in the WTO results in an erosion of national sovereignty. Congressman Doug Bereuter, D-Neb., says that it does not. Moreover, Bereuter says that "no significant scholars" suggest that American participation in the WTO results in a loss of national sovereignty. Both can't be right. Bereuter obviously has not met Lewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., world renowned economic scholar and president of the Von Mises Institute, who says, "We should toss the WTO into the dustbin of history ..." because "What appears to be a step in the right direction -- towards greater liberty in trade across borders - turns out to be a leap into world statism." The WTO agreement requires participating nations to conform their laws to comply with WTO rulings. This language clearly defines the ruling of the WTO to be superior to laws passed by Congress. How can this situation not be a loss of national sovereignty? Congressman Phil Crane, R-Ill., has the answer. He says that the United States is not compelled to change its laws, even though we have agreed to do so by accepting the WTO agreement. Should the U.S. fail to conform its laws to WTO rulings, the agreement authorizes the WTO to impose fines of its choosing as long as the U.S. remains in noncompliance. When any foreign government has the authority to order the United States to change its laws, and enforce that order by imposing fines, it doesn't take too much of a scholar to recognize that WTO sovereignty is more sovereign than U.S. sovereignty. Crane says this is not a loss of sovereignty, it's just the price we have to pay for not playing by the rules. Fines imposed by the WTO are not the slap-on-the-wrist variety. The U.S. said no to British Petroleum's wish to ship gasoline with the additive MTBE into the United States. The WTO said that is a violation of their rules and slapped the U.S. with a $360 million fine, according to Congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich. "When the WTO kicks in, sovereignty is kicked out," Stupak says. Congressman Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., pointed out that the U.S. Constitution clearly places the responsibility for regulating foreign trade upon the Congress. The WTO usurps that responsibility. Phil Crane sees it differently. He says Congress has no problem delegating responsibility for regulating trade to the Commerce Committee, and various subcommittees. To Crane, delegating the responsibility for regulating trade to the WTO follows the same reasoning. The major difference, of course, is that no American has the chance to vote for or against, any member of the WTO which has the final say on trade regulations. Nearly every speaker who stood to oppose the Paul proposal, began their presentation with a litany of WTO problems that need to be corrected. Most of the opposition speakers took the position that the WTO should be reformed, but that the U.S. should remain a member while working for reform. The WTO is accountable to no other political power and can be reformed only by an extraordinary majority of the 135 WTO member nations. The U.S. has one vote, and no veto power. Congressmen have no power at all to influence the WTO. Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage said that congressmen were not even allowed access to the recent WTO meeting in Seattle. The issues of national sovereignty and constitutional authority were systematically ignored by the speakers who opposed the Paul resolution. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., touted the WTO and pointed to an increase in exports of $235 billion since the WTO came into existence. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., quickly countered that during the same period, our overall trade deficit had grown by $300 billion, a fact conveniently ignored by WTO supporters. WTO supporters tried to cast opponents as "isolationists," and conjured up images of the Depression and world wars that would follow withdrawal from the WTO. During the period between 1947 and 1995, foreign trade was conducted under the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), a period that saw the greatest global economic expansion in the history of the world. GATT had no authority to impose fines or require conformity to its rules. Supporters of the WTO -- opponents of the Paul proposal -- displayed an alarming willingness to look the other way when confronted
Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 07/10/1999 5:33:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 99-07-08 18:13:36 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rights have meaning only if there is a remedy for their violation. The Supreme Court's deecisions mean that there is no remedy against state governments even when they violate rights created by federal law. The Bill of Rights is a FEDERAL document, is it not? Kiss your rights goodbye ... Let's hear it for devolution --dis-integration-- here in the newly dis-United States. I see you've been studying the latest decisions of the Rehnquist Court. I hate to say it, but I think what you say is truer than I would like it to be. And just think, the Reagan/Bush Supreme Court has years to go before anyone is likely to die or retire. Wait until they've had another couple of years to accomplish their ends. Prudy DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- They are al working toward the same goal and following the same guide book. It does not matter at all who is sitting on the court nor who appointed them. The fact that Clinton has all but endorsed GWBushJr should speak volumes. The game plan is put into play when the laws are originally enacted by "our" legislators. When have we seen a truly surprising ruling by the supreme court? I have not been surprised in recent memory. Amelia - Original Message - From: Prudence L. Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty -Caveat Lector- In a message dated 07/10/1999 5:33:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 99-07-08 18:13:36 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rights have meaning only if there is a remedy for their violation. The Supreme Court's deecisions mean that there is no remedy against state governments even when they violate rights created by federal law. The Bill of Rights is a FEDERAL document, is it not? Kiss your rights goodbye ... Let's hear it for devolution --dis-integration-- here in the newly dis-United States. I see you've been studying the latest decisions of the Rehnquist Court. I hate to say it, but I think what you say is truer than I would like it to be. And just think, the Reagan/Bush Supreme Court has years to go before anyone is likely to die or retire. Wait until they've had another couple of years to accomplish their ends. Prudy DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance-not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-07-08 18:13:36 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rights have meaning only if there is a remedy for their violation. The Supreme Court's deecisions mean that there is no remedy against state governments even when they violate rights created by federal law. The Bill of Rights is a FEDERAL document, is it not? Kiss your rights goodbye ... Let's hear it for devolution --dis-integration-- here in the newly dis-United States. So now we can "constitutionally" have states in which freedom of speech is punished, slavery is re-instituted, women are reduced to non-voting masculine "property," and legal protections are limited to "citizens," redefined perhaps as the very wealthy -- or in which a homosexual orientation is required in order to obtain employment, or pedophilia is institutionalized in the school system -- or in which candidacy for FEDERAL political office (senators, congressmen) is restricted to Moonies, Scientologists, Klansmen, tree-worshippers, or whatever, thus altering the balance of our NATIONAL legislature... What is there to prevent legal argument that municipal governments (cities or towns) now also have the right to enact legislation that violates federal AND state law? That "sovereign individuals" may likewise violate municipal, state, and federal laws, in the ultimate application of this peculiar principle, "sovereign immunity" from prosecution? A return to the Hobbesian version of "natural law" -- "The war of EACH against ALL." DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 07/08/1999 1:00:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Both the Ninth and 10th Amendments are held in the deepest contempt and disrespect by the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Why? Because these amendments were written to protect against consolidation of power by the federal government. Dismissal of the Ninth and 10th Amendments allows Congress to control our schools, mandate speed limits, and require employment and college admissions quotas, as well as other forms of Washington tyranny. Today, little states can do nothing without Washington's permission. That was not the Framers' vision. Don't worry about the Framers' vision. The Rehnquist Court has obliterated federal law and anything Congress has to say. It happened just a couple of weeks ago. Your side is winning. Well except for the 6th amendment. They gave that the boot too. Prudy DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- Don't worry about the Framers' vision. The Rehnquist Court has obliterated federal law and anything Congress has to say. It happened just a couple of weeks ago. Your side is winning. Well except for the 6th amendment. They gave that the boot too. Prudy Prudy, Could you give a link or post the ruling you are talking about? If you posted it to the list I must have missed it. Thanks! === Jeff Russo [EMAIL PROTECTED] - "The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 07/08/1999 5:33:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't worry about the Framers' vision. The Rehnquist Court has obliterated federal law and anything Congress has to say. It happened just a couple of weeks ago. Your side is winning. Well except for the 6th amendment. They gave that the boot too. Prudy Prudy, Could you give a link or post the ruling you are talking about? If you posted it to the list I must have missed it. Thanks! Well, I'll give you part of one story that ran in my very conservative daily paper. It surprised me tht they ran it. The original column was "Rightwing Supreme Court Busy Protecting Rights - but States Rights, not Your Rights." It was written for the LA Times by Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor of Law and Political Science at University of Southern California. There was a follow up the next day by Edward P. Lazarus, author of "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court. That was also done for the LA Times. I quote from Chermerinsky: In a startling series of decisions, the US Supreme Court has radically changed American government. For 2l2 years of American history, people have been able to sue state governments when a state violates federal laws and inflicts injuries. However last Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled tht state governments generally cannot be sued in any court without their consent. The result is that state governments can violate federal law with impunity and nowhere be held accountable. The decisions are the height of conservative judicial activism. The five most conservative justices - William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas - invented new rights for state governments at the expense of individuals. One of the cases involved a probation officer in Maine who was owed overtime pay by the state government under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The court ruled that the state government's sovereigh immunity meant that it could be sued in neither federal nor state court, even if the person suing had a right to the money. Another case involved a Florida investment method that allowed students to set aside funds to pay for college education. A company that developed the system sued Florida for infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that the state could not be sued in federal court, even if it had violated the company's rights. Because federal law precludes state courts from hearing patent cases and because in the Maine case the court held that state governments can't be sued in state courts without their consent, Florida now could profit greatly from violating the private company's patent and trademark, and there's nothing the company can do about it. The cases have huge implications. A state laboratory could dump toxic wastes in violation of federal laws, and those who become ill would have no recourse against the state in any court. A state university could violate copyright laws by making copies of a book and selling it to students at a few dollars less than its usual price, profiting at the expense of the publisher and author. States could ignore patent laws, violating the rights of inventors and patent holders, and no court will be able to grant relief. The Supreme Court based its ruling on its desire to protect federalism and state sovereignty. Yet in doing so, the court subverted the most basic constitutional principle of federalism: the supremacy of federal law. Article VI of the Constitution mandates that federal law is supreme over the states, and that state judges must obey federal law. The effect of Wednesday's decision iis that state governmets now can ignore federal law, and no court will be available to enforce it. The court also proclaimed tht states have a "right" to be free from lawsuits without their consent, even thought this right is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The only provision dealing with the issue, the llth Amendment says tht a state cannot be sued in federal court by citizens of other states. There is no provision that limits the ability to sue a state in state court or that prevents a state from being sued in federal court by its own citizens. The high court simply invented a new right for state governments. Moreover, the court treated safeguarding state governments as the ultimate goal and left individuals - who are owed overtime pay, who own patents- with nowhere to turn for relief. (There is more here, but I'll wind up withthe last paragraph. Rights have meaning only if there is a remedy for their violation. The Supreme Court's deecisions mean that there is no remedy against state governments even when they violate rights created by federal law. In a breathtaking exercise of judicial activism, the court has subverted th superemacy of federal law and left countless individuals without recourse. End of Chemerinsky story. Lazarus
[CTRL] Sovereignty
-Caveat Lector- From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_williams/19990707_xcwwi_stat e_sove.shtml State sovereignty - --- © 1999 Creators Syndicate, Inc. Reading an article in this April's Chronicles magazine, "Cajuns Uncaged," made my day. Last October, by nearly a 60 percent majority, Louisianians approved Amendment 1 to their state constitution. Amendment 1 declares: "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Louisiana's amendment would be entirely unnecessary if the White House, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court didn't have disdain for the U.S. Constitution. What the citizens of Louisiana seek is already part of the protections found in our Constitution. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Both the Ninth and 10th Amendments are held in the deepest contempt and disrespect by the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Why? Because these amendments were written to protect against consolidation of power by the federal government. Dismissal of the Ninth and 10th Amendments allows Congress to control our schools, mandate speed limits, and require employment and college admissions quotas, as well as other forms of Washington tyranny. Today, little states can do nothing without Washington's permission. That was not the Framers' vision. What would Williams do if he were Louisiana governor with such a mandate from the people? I would write Congress, stating that Louisiana citizens are reclaiming their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Respecting the Constitution and disobeying Congress would surely invite retaliation. Congress might threaten to cut off Medicaid reimbursements and highway-construction funds if Louisiana didn't follow their dictates. Faced with congressional threats, I would go to the state legislature to establish a law enabling the state treasurer to establish a federal tax escrow account. All Louisiana citizens and businesses with federal tax obligations would be required by law to make those payments to Louisiana's federal tax escrow account. From that account, Louisiana citizens' federal obligations (income, profit and excise taxes) would periodically be sent to Washington. Then I'd send Congress another letter, informing them that if they retaliate against Louisiana citizens for obeying the Constitution by cutting off, say, $10 billion worth of Medicaid reimbursements or highway construction funds, we're simply going to reduce by $10 billion our periodic payments of tax obligations to Washington. You say, "Hey, Williams, things could get pretty nasty after that!" You're right and Congress might use armed force. "Governor" Williams would ask Louisianians just how far they are willing to go and what they're willing to sacrifice to protect those precious rights the Framers sought to guarantee by our Constitution. You say, "Williams, have you lost your marbles, challenging a powerful federal government?" I haven't lost my marbles any more than James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and others lost theirs. After all, in 1776 -- when our Founders handed King George III the Declaration of Independence -- Great Britain was the mightiest power on the face of the earth. They knew that if they lost they'd be hung as traitors. Of course, all of this would be irrelevant if Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court followed their oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - --- WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. AER ~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." --Buddha + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + +
