My free book: Liberation Day: Our Nation Empowered by the Constitution

[EricMartin]

I wrote this book, and I'd love to hear your questions and comments. Ron Paul (through a friend, who told me that I should check him out) got me into the liberty movement and on the libertarian path. I hope Dr. Paul would agree with all of this book.


Here's where you can get it for free (at least for now):


https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/900010


It's available as a pdf, epub, mobi (Kindle), and as an online version.


The book contains a concrete plan to restore the Constitution in the United States according to the founders' original intent. It also contains the justification for that plan. You can read the first 3 chapters to get much of the heart of the book. Also, you can read the table of contents to see the major points of the concrete plan. If you love reading, feel free to read the whole thing!


Thank you, Eric Martin

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Air Force is an army, the Constitution empowers Congress to create armies.

 

[EricMartin]

Good point and thank you for your comment. But the original intent of the term "army" was not airplanes. Airplanes didn't exist for the founders. The original air force in the U.S. was the Army Air Force... so they perhaps tried to get around the limitations of having an Air Force according to the Constitution by lumping it into the Army. But either way, it wasn't the founders' original intent. That's why, in the book, I recommend what I believe the founders would have generally recommend if they were in this situation: we simply amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to have an air force, similar to how Congress has the power to have a navy. We must remember that if we allow the definitions of words to change from the original intents of the founders, then what we are doing is saying that the Constitution can mean anything as long as Webster's or some other "authority" defines a particular word or set of words that are contained in the Constitution a certain way. We don't want the Constitution to be able to be interpreted flexibibly, because then ultimately it has no true meaning. But the Constitution is inherently very flexible because it allows for itself to be amended. But its interpretation should not be flexible. The founders stated intent was for the Constitution to be interpreted based on what they meant with the words when they wrote them. Anything that might make us want to deviate from this original intent, such as the things that would make it outdated: such as the advent of airplane-based war, could easily be incorporated into the Constitution through an amendment. Please let me know if you don't agree or have any comments. Thank you!

 

[Swordsmyth]

Good point and thank you for your comment. But the original intent of the term "army" was not airplanes. Airplanes didn't exist for the founders. The original air force in the U.S. was the Army Air Force... so they perhaps tried to get around the limitations of having an Air Force according to the Constitution by lumping it into the Army. But either way, it wasn't the founders' original intent. That's why, in the book, I recommend what I believe the founders would have generally recommend if they were in this situation: we simply amend the Constitution to give Congress the power to have an air force, similar to how Congress has the power to have a navy. We must remember that if we allow the definitions of words to change from the original intents of the founders, then what we are doing is saying that the Constitution can mean anything as long as Webster's or some other "authority" defines a particular word or set of words that are contained in the Constitution a certain way. We don't want the Constitution to be able to be interpreted flexibibly, because then ultimately it has no true meaning. But the Constitution is inherently very flexible because it allows for itself to be amended. But its interpretation should not be flexible. The founders stated intent was for the Constitution to be interpreted based on what they meant with the words when they wrote them. Anything that might make us want to deviate from this original intent, such as the things that would make it outdated: such as the advent of airplane-based war, could easily be incorporated into the Constitution through an amendment. Please let me know if you don't agree or have any comments. Thank you!

I understand your desire for conservatism in the interpretation of the Constitution but since airplanes weren't even invented in the founders' day I think there is room for a little generosity, airplanes are not fundamentally different from other forms of military equipment known to the founders like cavalry equipment or artillery.

To say that an Air Force is not an army would give our enemies license to argue that freedom of the press doesn't include radio, TV or the internet or that the 2ndA only covers muskets.

 

[EricMartin]

To say that an Air Force is not an army would give our enemies license to argue that freedom of the press doesn't include radio, TV or the internet or that the 2ndA only covers muskets.

Consistency is key. If we are consistent in the original interpretation of the Constitution, then we would hold that 99% of the Bill of Rights was already included in the original intent of the Constitution before the Bill of Rights came into existence. They can argue all they want, but they would be utterly wrong.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Consistency is key. If we are consistent in the original interpretation of the Constitution, then we would hold that 99% of the Bill of Rights was already included in the original intent of the Constitution before the Bill of Rights came into existence. They can argue all they want, but they would be utterly wrong.

True, but as I said I don't see an Air Force as being fundamentally different than if Congress had in the 1800's decided to make a separate cavalry army for rapid responses to invasions and raiding behind enemy lines.

P.S. I believe that the Air Force should have remained the Army Air Corps and that it should be put back under the Army but that is a policy issue not a Constitutional issue.

 

[EricMartin]

Good stuff. How about this paradigm shift: how about we interpret the Constitution as constrictive as possible upon are government according the the original intent of the founders, and work from that as our starting point? Amending for an Air Force would be worth it, I think. I don't want to give our enemies an inch.

 

[Swordsmyth]

International Investment Office - Unconstitutional. Now called the Office of Investment Security. They keep foreign people or entities from investing too much in certain U.S. businesses so that foreigners can’t control those businesses.

[MENTION=70500]EricMartin[/MENTION]

How is it not Constitutional?

A1S8:
The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce with foreign Nations

 

[Swordsmyth]

Good stuff. How about this paradigm shift: how about we interpret the Constitution as constrictive as possible upon are government according the the original intent of the founders, and work from that as our starting point? Amending for an Air Force would be worth it, I think. I don't want to give our enemies an inch.

Perhaps we could say that government should be given the minimum benefit of any doubts and that the people should be given the maximum benefit of any doubts but in that case I would recommend putting the Air Force back under Army control instead of or until creating it by amendment.

 

[Swordsmyth]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences - Unconstitutional. Created in 1972, educating people in medicine is not a Constitutional role of government.[/FONT]

@EricMartin

Since our military needs doctors and nurses how is this necessarily unconstitutional?
If it educates people who don't serve in the military that might be unconstitutional and if there are plenty of doctors and nurses who are willing to enlist it might be unnecessary though.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Executive Office for Immigration Review – Unconstitutional. Immigration is a State’s Rights issue. In our nation’s early history, states had immigration laws.[SUP]56[/SUP] It wasn’t until 1882 that the first major Federal immigration law was passed, without any constitutional amendment giving that power to the Federal Government.[SUP]57[/SUP] Naturalization is in the hands of the Federal Government because it’s listed in the Constitution. Naturalization is rules for and the granting of citizenship into the United States. Immigration is not listed in the Constitution, and so it rests with the states and the people according to the 10th Amendment.

@EricMartin

Here I strongly disagree, Immigration is part of the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.

See this article: https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/

And: https://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

The meaning of "Offenses against the Law of Nations"

Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to "define and punish ... Offenses against the Law of Nations". It is important to understand what is and is not included in the term of art "law of nations", and not confuse it with "international law". They are not the same thing. The phrase "law of nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise the field of "international law". The distinction goes back to ancient Roman Law.

Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1788 included the following general elements, taken from Blackstone's Commentaries, and prosecution of those who might violate them:

(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.

(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.

(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.

(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.

(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.

(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas established with all nations in 1788,

(8) Prohibition of enslavement of foreign nationals and international trading in slaves.



For a more detailed debate see this thread:

Article 1 Section 9

 

[Swordsmyth]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]International Trade Administration - Its goals are: “1. Provide practical information to help Americans select markets and products. 2. Ensure that Americans have access to international markets as required by the U.S. trade agreements. 3. Safeguard Americans from unfair competition from dumped and subsidized imports.” Only goal 2 is Constitutional. Information and ensuring competition are not.[/FONT][SUP][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]84[/FONT][/SUP]

@EricMartin

How is goal 3 not constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't limit the purposes that foreign commerce may be regulated for.

 

[Swordsmyth]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Transportation Department[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Why can’t we trust the states and the people to finance and build their own roads, bridges, airports, and seaports? They can, and that’s what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. We know that commerce among the states does not include building roads or other public works like that.[/FONT]

@EricMartin

Roads are mentioned:

A1S8:
The Congress shall have Power To...establish Post Offices and post Roads;

 

[Swordsmyth]

@EricMartin

Roads are mentioned:

A1S8:
The Congress shall have Power To...establish Post Offices and post Roads;

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Federal Highway Administration - This is unconstitutional. Highways are a state’s right. Think of how much fairer it is for the states and people to allocate money to this than the Federal Government. Right now, people taxed across the nation have to pay for up to 95% of the cost of some interstate highways, and the states only pay 5%.[/FONT][SUP][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]101[/FONT][/SUP][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] That means that a politically powerful state in the Federal Congress could get much better roads that another state. I see this all of the time. It seems like Maryland’s interstate highways are much nicer that Pennsylvania’s (my home state), and the state of Maryland is probably only paying 10% of that cost, whereas the nation at large is footing 90% of the bill. I don’t want to pay Maryland’s road building bill, and it makes no sense for me to do so.[/FONT]

@EricMartin

As I pointed out above roads are authorized so you would need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of federal involvement with at least some of them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services - This is somewhat Constitutional, as rules for citizenship are clearly delegated to the Congress in the Constitution as the “Rule of Naturalization”; however, immigration is not a power given to Congress and must be left to the states and the people. The name of this agency should be changed to “U.S. Citizenship Services,” and it should be moved under the State Department.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]U.S. Customs and Border Protection - This is similar to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services entity in that the Customs part is Constitutional. It should be called “U.S. Customs” and be moved under the Commerce Department. The “Border Protection” part should be dissolved as this is unconstitutional and is a right of the states and the people.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - The Customs part is Constitutional, but the Immigration part is not. This should be moved to the Department of Commerce and anything unconstitutional dissolved.[/FONT]

@EricMartin

These are Constitutional.
See above where I discussed Immigration.

Also: A4S4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

 

[Bryan]

I wrote this book, and I'd love to hear your questions and comments. Ron Paul (through a friend, who told me that I should check him out) got me into the liberty movement and on the libertarian path. I hope Dr. Paul would agree with all of this book.


Here's where you can get it for free (at least for now):


https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/900010


It's available as a pdf, epub, mobi (Kindle), and as an online version.


The book contains a concrete plan to restore the Constitution in the United States according to the founders' original intent. It also contains the justification for that plan. You can read the first 3 chapters to get much of the heart of the book. Also, you can read the table of contents to see the major points of the concrete plan. If you love reading, feel free to read the whole thing!


Thank you, Eric Martin

Nice! Welcome to the site, Eric. I put this on the front page / our twitter for more exposure.

 

[Danke]

ARMY

late 14c., "armed expedition," from Old French armée "armed troop, armed expedition" (14c.), from Medieval Latin armata "armed force," from Latin armata, fem. of armatus "armed, equipped, in arms," as a noun, "armed men, soldiers," past participle of armare "to arm," literally "act of arming," related to arma "tools, arms" (see arm (n.2)).

 

[Swordsmyth]

ARMY

late 14c., "armed expedition," from Old French armée "armed troop, armed expedition" (14c.), from Medieval Latin armata "armed force," from Latin armata, fem. of armatus "armed, equipped, in arms," as a noun, "armed men, soldiers," past participle of armare "to arm," literally "act of arming," related to arma "tools, arms" (see arm (n.2)).

That is my position but I still think the Air Farce should have remained the Army Air Corps and that it should be put back under the Army.

 

[Danke]

That is my position but I still think the Air Farce should have remained the Army Air Corps and that it should be put back under the Army.

"Air Farce"

[h=1]wow never heard that one before. you're so creative. did you make that up by yourself? laugh out loud[/h]

 

[Danke]

That is my position but I still think the Air Farce should have remained the Army Air Corps and that it should be put back under the Army.

Maybe it would work, but I'd rather I have my leadership be a combat pilot.