Everyone's Opinion Newsletter

JOBS AND TRANSPORTATION

Peace, Progress, and Fiscal Responsibility,

Poeman
Pennswoods
(Official Response Requested)
What do you think?


What do you think?


What do you think?

VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
Leading up to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 there were a series of articles written seeking the people’s approval for the type of government we have. Ratification was sought for a federally constituted government with the understanding that the constitution and form of government being proposed were for a constituted republic with its nature being representative. The articles written in support of this proposed government were known as the Federalist papers; also at the same time there were counter arguments against the proposed Gov. and its constitution, these articles were known as the Anti-Federalist papers. Since the federal constitution was accepted and ratified, the supporting articles of the Federalist papers become part of the compact or understanding on which the bargain was made or the deal struck with the American people. To violate or tamper with these fundamental principles would subvert that agreement made with the people.

One of the apprehensions that confronted the framers of our federal constitution was what form of federal government would be best suited for controlling the vicious tendencies of factions in such a large territory the proposed government was to govern.  In Madison’s opening paragraphs of Federalist No.10 he states, “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice….

By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” 

Madison’s remedy for controlling the effect of factions is the moderating effect of the principle of representation in a Republic, which guards against the influence of factious behavior. Or as Madison continues on to state, “If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote: It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution”. With these principles in mind let’s turn our attention to the last general election of the county commissioners race.

In the county commissioners race the voters were limited to voting for two people when there were three positions to be filled. The reason given by the county elections office was- “this situation was created in order to allow the minor party representation”. At first glance this seems relatively benign. Consider though, this situation has been and is being played out across the entire state of Pa. in every other county, so its effect is far reaching.

Reassessment was the top election issue and a majority of voters voted for candidates who were against reassessment, respectively R-Tomassetti and R-Melling; the discrepancy was the reelection of D-Gority who was staunchly in favor of reassessment over D-Nardelli who was against reassessment. Had this limitation not been placed on the voters, or the (principle of representation), Nardelli would have won and the will of the voters would have been appropriately reflected. The election of Nardelli would have caused the Democratic Party to rethink its position. The principle of representation as Madison indicated in Federalist No.10 would have provided a moderating effect on the Democratic Party concerning the issue of reassessment; thus allowing the will of the majority to defeat the will of a faction. Due to this gerrymandered and deceitful process the will of the majority was overridden or put in jeopardy by factious behavior. Madison’s observation, theory, or principle of this natural tendency was correct; however, what was to be one of the strengths and benefits of a representative republic has been hijacked to enhance the factious behavior of two “major parties” that have dwindled into minor factions themselves, both individually and collectively, as exemplified in the last general election. This subversive situation has been enshrined in a rule of law that betrays fundamental republican and constitutional principles.

Madison’s Federalist No.10 was written in support of the U.S. Constitution and is a fundamental principle that is applicable to the nature of any constituted representative REPUBLIC. Violations of this natural principle distort, confuse and change the nature of a representative republic, which is exactly what the limitation on the voters in the county commissioners race was meant to do. This outrage becomes even more outrageous though when one reads Federalist No.51, which Madison also authored. In Federalist No.51, the security offered by the separation of powers in the way that the federal government was to be constructed is discussed; it also goes on to state that usurpations are even further guarded against by the “compound republic of America”. In other words, the states in their own right are republics; therefore, the supporting federalist papers and their principles are just as applicable to this state republic as the federal republic. This is part of the arch in our state’s and federal constitutional history and heritage. Furthermore the second constitution of Pa. changes this state’s form of government to mirror the federal government. Also, The Council of Censors was removed which was tasked with pointing out constitutional usurpations by any branch of government, including the judicial system. Who is watching this unified judicial system now?

The two major parties have ingrained themselves in a rule of law that has no constitutional recognition according to fundamental constitutional principles; to consider otherwise, would be to imagine that political parties are part of a constitution and therefore part of a constituted government, which they are not. It is an assumption the parties have made, which is usurpation; the type of unlawful taking that has always allowed tyranny through out history in the name of the people, to substitute the constitutions of parties for constitutions of Republics; it is these often-overlooked subtleties of factious tactics that make the political landscape ripe for a dictator claiming to bring order to their mischief. 

For this situation to continue its existence would mean that the unified judicial system of the state of Pa. is complicit with and supportive of factious behavior. They are not guided by principle. This situation with the commissioner’s race is a prime example of a flagrant dereliction of duty in fulfilling their constitutional charge under the separation of powers doctrine. They should not have to be prompted to act by a lawsuit but act on their own responsibility as constitutionally charged. The continued existence of this situation underscores how politicized this state judicial system is; besides, its good for business, legal business.

For a citizen to make a legal challenge of this nature it would be nearly impossible due to the cost. It allows their high priced lawyers to shape law according to politics not according to constitutional principles. If the existence of this situation is in our present constitution, there is still no excuse for allowing it to exist. We have a lengthy constitutional history and this state’s present constitution cannot be divorced from past constitutional law. If the supreme court of this state or the judiciary committees in either legislative house can quote some 300 yr. old English common law to support their opinions than the same reasoning and consideration can be done for any violation of constitutional principles. Constitutional principles precede any law. From their pay grab, which was nothing more than a ruse to make an end run around constitutional law and heritage, to this situation, they have certainly indicated they are not friends to a constituted government. The list of trespasses continues on: election laws that favor factious behavior over the will of a majority, election laws that set unreasonable standards for third party candidates, the taxation of real property, flagrant disregard of republican principles, flagrant disregard for constitutional principles, it’s all right there under your noses and a matter of record.

The final outrage is this, the unified judicial system of the state of Pennsylvania may ignore the federalist papers, but cannot ignore the nature and spirit of a duly constituted representative Republic of the people, which has been woven between the lines in the Federalists Papers. Their pattern of behavior and profile indicate a deliberate and obvious intention to legally keep the nature and spirit of our constituted republic in conflict with each other, thus keeping it confused and possibly destroying itself. While the legal system of this state makes a handsome profit in the carnage it has created and deleteriously allows to exist.  

However, as Madison has stated in Federalist No.10; a faction “will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution”. They have now been unmasked. The dilemma, which this politicized, unified judicial system has kept this state in through the years, this Commonwealth, this state Republic, is now their Dilemma; a dilemma which allows for only three outcomes; and they are, The first: These conflicts in constitutional principles will be recognized and result in deliberate reforms of these trespasses and real property released from taxation in order to regain the citizenry’s confidence. The second: If the trespasses are not corrected than the conflict will move inward and destroy the parties by internal factious behavior. Third: If neither of the first two occurs than there is no conflict between the nature and spirit of the parties and they are a form of fascism, to be disposed of at great cost in blood and treasure as history has always disposed of this kind.     

A majority does not murder, a majority does not steal, a majority does not rape, a majority does not misuse a firearm, a majority does not misuse drugs, a majority would not render their property insecure, but a small faction does and it’s time to go after the criminals at the top because they’re worse than any thing in our jails. They are the ones that use the rule of law to take the liberties and the property of the majority in the name of faction. To protect, preserve, and defend a constitution means to protect, preserve, and defend the property of the people. A young soldier swears this oath and faces the possibility of being maimed, wounded, or killed, while the supreme court of this state and its judicial system uses it to wipe their behinds for profit. To borrow one of Madison’s expressions, this whole situation is indeed “an unhallowed perversion.”                     

The Freeman
Blair County

CITY-TOWNSHIP ALLIANCE?
I wonder why townships surrounding the City of Altoona are always looking for ways to reduce costs and retain manpower with their fire department and ambulance services and are willing to spend money on studies etc. Yet, they never look into the possibility of the cost savings, the efficiency, and the value of contracting with the city fire department. Not to mention the insurance savings that businesses and property owners would share.

Joe
Altoona, PA
What do you think?