Attention Continued:









ATTENTION:
10/ 18 /16







OVERRIDING A POPULAR
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION






- Links Section -

- Candidate Videos -



We said on the Bicameral Electoral College Reform page:


' The privilege granted to you to vote for electoral college electors is an accommodation of your state legislature who feels you can be trusted at this time and thinks the masses are of stable enough mind, within sound reason and perceives the society as functionable and at relative peace. However, with today's goings on you have to begin to wonder if this is still a valid perspective '

~ paragraph 6, Bicam I


....and:


' We consider the current times to be thwarted, skewed and have long been unfairly biased in favor of the Republican and Democrat candidates for decades through government campaign funding and manipulated ballot access. Thus to make up for all the years of untrue elections, we believe it fair and proper that for the next presidential election all of you pressure your state legislatures to allow only the selection of third-party and independent electors for president '

~ paragraph 18, Bicam I







~ ~ ~ ~ ~



The Democrat and Republican presidential candidates have historically high negatives. The primary process was perceived as manipulated and rigged. The binary election system has degraded to its destined dysfunctional levels. The popular electorate displays its inability to rise above these limitations and now exhibits its own lack of discernment. Hillary Clinton is calculating and corrupt while Trump is contradictory and chaotic. Both are overly controversial. The country has been in a lawless constitutional crisis for some time now. D.C. - the Den of Corruption - is out of control, spending hand-over-fist into bankruptcy and using the departments of the federal government more and more to intimidate and control the masses towards a feudal police state. There are urban insurrections in major cities based on racialist hysteria before facts of the particular case are known by forensics. We are weakening while adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran strengthen against the U.S. militarily and undermine us via cyber espionage. Our dollar is more and more cheapened and rejected. It's time to take emergency measures to ensure proper and stable governance ahead and return to our constitutional base. Clinton and Trump are way short of the mark to get us there.


Therefore it is here determined that we put forth into action a constitutionally sound override of the popular presidential election. We shall convince legislatures of the several states to exercise their plenary power and deny Clinton and Trump a majority of presidential electors in the electoral college. Instead the legislatures will install electors for alternative candidate(s) who will possess or coalesce a majority in the electoral college or be one of the three highest tallies with no electoral college majority finding favor in the subsequent Amendment XII House quorum.


Controversial? Yes. Difficult? That depends but even more difficult to remain in crisis and go over the edge. What will the media and academia say? - "Apostates to democracy!!!" - However, a democracy we are really not. This is a republic with checking parameters to majorities, minorities, electoral processes and interactions between the three government branches.


What will the people say? - "Our right to vote for president has been taken away!" - Yet they are wrong. Our manual - the Constitution - says the legislatures declare how or they directly choose who is president. The popular vote for president is merely a privilege granted state-by-state and has been allowed for years and years but not a guaranteed right. Actually our early presidents were chosen by a state-by-state mix of popular vote and state legislatures. In this time of crisis where the popular vote is manipulated and with an 'American Idol' mentality, we need to step back and reset America by choosing a fit, alternate president more by the state legislatures as in the beginning.


Those who advocate more or improper government control: like Obamacare where bureaucrats tell you which doctor you can visit, like gun control which unduly impedes or blocks a right that is actually in the Constitution, like climate change which wants to overregulate our industries by pseudo-science predictions and eliminate dissent, like the judicial activists re-writing laws in our courts and nullifying our elections -- they have no leg to stand on in complaining about a proper constitutional power of state legislatures to solely choose our president through the electoral college instead of utilizing a popular election. And what of the more traditionalist representative-republic type commentators? Quixotically they say it is a binary choice, limited perhaps but the system we have and everyone participating up to this point would be disenfranchised. Really? Are they not disenfranchised from the manipulative two-party ballot and closed debates? Are they not disenfranchised by the established parties' clandestine support of multiple clone candidates diluting the outsider vote in primaries? Are they not disenfranchised by the superdelegates and convention by-laws geared solely for the elites? Are they not disenfranchised by the major parties withholding funds or back-stabbing the more grassroots candidates? Are they not disenfranchised by the resulting low quality candidates and the watered-down national committee platforms? Even more so - how disenfranchised will they be when forced to vote Clinton or Trump where they take office and fall way short of putting forth representative government, truly free markets and constitutional law and order? This is a crisis and it is time to pull the emergency override lever on the popular presidential election.



So, just as we have:



~ A President who can veto legislation and then be overridden by congressional 2/3 majority;

~ A President who can convene Congress on extraordinary occasion;

~ A President who can fill vacancies of the Senate during the Recess;

~ A Senate and President that are to concur over treaties and Supreme Court Justice nominations;

~ A House that can invoke impeachment;

~ A House where all bills for raising revenue shall originate (power of the purse);

~ A Congress where its houses can expel members by a 2/3 majority;

~ A Congress that may vest appointment of inferior offices to the President or to the courts or department heads;

~ A Congress that may ordain and establish the inferior courts of the U.S. and constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

~ A Congress that may determine whether the Supreme Court has original as opposed to appellate jurisdiction in certain type cases;

~ A convention of states protocol convened by 2/3 of state legislatures to propose amendments;

~ A ratification protocol for amendments by 3/4 of state legislatures or state conventions;

~ A Constitution whose original text had the appointment of Senators by state legislatures;



.....We also have that the legislature of every state exercises the power itself or can select a method for the same, either of which determines its electors to the electoral college in a constitutional manner. There is no requirement of a statewide (or nationwide for that matter) popular presidential election using state electors.
{Article II, Section 1. -- U.S. Constitution}


Accordingly, we call for a directly chosen president by several state legislatures through their own vote and assignment of electors this election cycle - blocking out the Democrat and Republican nominees as unfit. This would be acceptable in partial similarity to how prime ministers abroad are chosen by their parliaments and to how our House Speaker is chosen by the particular incarnation of Congress. While we still favor a separate executive branch and will nonetheless still have same, we favor more input from state legislatures toward that choice of chief executive and in this cycle request a blockage of the Democrat and Republican nominees in the electoral college.







WHO SHOULD THEY CHOOSE?




We shant go to all this trouble just to install a candidate merely because they have a more polished speech mode, look better on TV, can better cooperate with Democrats and Republicans to "get things done". No, we want to do all this in order to have a constitutionally correct president who will fight to put America back on its proper track. Hopefully one that comes around and sees they cannot be too timid about shutting down a lawless, unconstitutional government that cannot even put together a budget, spending and wasting us into bankruptcy while paying Iran to nuke us. Only to the freakish, elite media types would that seem like a government we should strive to keep open.


One such person running with notable organizational support that the legislatures should install is candidate Darrel Castle of the Constitution Party who is on the ballot of half the states and as a write-in for 23 or so others. While the old institution media have gone out of their way to ignore him, we think now is a good time to alert state legislators of their duty to select him via the electoral college. This is because he actually intends to govern by limits of the Constitution which means he will not force the church onto us through government as has been worried about in the past over his party's perception as theocrats.


While he is definitely a believer whose faith guides him, he has stated no desire to go beyond constitutional limits in governing alongside influence of his faith. He opposes the war on drugs for example. As well, he sees war as a last resort and wants a more measured deployment of our military instead of endless wars. Securing our borders first before even considering any deployments abroad is the stance. He opposes the cronyism of the federal government and by his faith seeks to be truthful and avoid corruption. While he is not a charismatic speaker or figure, he holds his own with a live crowd and can articulate most of his positions and reasoning. A low-key figure, Castle will more likely be an executive doing what is right behind the scenes without the in-your-face and accompanying Hollywood b.s. we have had with the current president. However, if you're more intrigued with controversies in character there is still Trump and Clinton along with the decay they would ensue.


Judging by Castle's overall campaign positions, if you disagree with Castle on some issues you may still have some sanctuary or recourse because he intends to limit the federal powers and their intrusions upon your state. With the maintenance of checks and balances and the political concentrations of the populace that means if you like living in a blue, purple or even red state then you can maintain such general stances more sovereignly by your state governor, legislature or even your local or municipal governments to varying degrees.


You may want to consider how your state capitol would handle with less interference from the feds: voter i.d. laws, certain state abortion regulations, state electoral districts, prospective oil drilling and state-approved medical marijuana dispensaries all of which immune to executive orders from the White House. Castle's presidency and Supreme Court tilt will be less inclined to issue overreaching national edicts while reserving powers to the states and to the people as his adherence to federalism prescribes. This is opposed to the centralized, one-size-fits-all powers that · be the politicians in D.C. are attempting upon you.


A Castle government would stick to more pressing national issues while letting you retain notable political diversity at state and local levels. Should you disagree in a national sense, the wayward tilt of Congress will more likely keep check on such a constitutionalist president. Some topics like term limits and Article V convention(s) are not presidentially dependent anyhow. Even if things won't go your way locally you still have option to move elsewhere in the U.S. as opposed to having to move abroad as some would do under Trump or Clinton. It all depends on your particular positions and how you would fare different under Trump or Clinton in comparison.


As we approach election, another alternate is rising in the west who espouses constitutional governance. Evan McMullin, an independent, has similar positions as Castle while moderate perhaps on some issues. Hopefully there will be a third-party debate including these two candidates with Stein and Johnson. PBS/NPR need to nationally advertise and broadcast such a debate. Possibility exists that McMullin could catch a state or two's popular vote out west and such electors would not only be historically notable but useful in leaning towards a constitutional candidate denying majority to Trump or Clinton. There would be less likely a need for a popular election override in such states.


So you should now consider all of this and forward this proposal to your state legislatures and friends in order to get Castle in the White House who happens to be running in almost all states under an organized, relatively manned effort. Third-party candidates Johnson and Stein have not cut the mustard and are lacking policy-wise while the nationalist populism of Trump, the crony collectivism of globalist Clinton will only harbor more problems.


Should your legislator hesitate to override the popular presidential election, then they are not worthy to hold office. They should be willing to risk any possible retaliation and even lose office to save our free and prosperous country. Their most pressing worries should be avoiding national destruction, the resulting judgement of history, their conscience and any final trial in the afterlife should they screw the masses by not appointing a fit president. Remember that installing an alternate president by state legislatures overriding the popular vote (or unpopular vote 2016) is a necessary and proper maneuver to save the republic from destruction. Note that the basics of this override plan have been set up in our nation's manual - the Constitution.






-Links- -Top- -Bottom-












*anchor for an index link*


~ Candidate Videos and Link ~




















www.castle2016.com






-Top- -Bottom-







*anchor for an index link*





-Top- -Bottom-





















*anchor for an index link*



Democrat & Republican Presidential Candidate Negatives:

Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for Trump:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html




Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for Clinton:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Presidential Electors in the Beginning:

' During the 1800's, two trends in the States altered and more or less standardized the manner of choosing Electors. The first trend was toward choosing Electors by the direct popular vote of the whole State (rather than by the State legislature or by the popular vote of each Congressional district). Indeed, by 1836, all States had moved to choosing their Electors by a direct statewide popular vote except South Carolina which persisted in choosing them by the State legislature until 1860.' ~ by William C. Kimberling

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_choosing.php




' It should easily be seen, from even a cursory perusal of the table below, that there were two principal methods of "appointment" of Presidential Electors utilized throughout the period covered by this table- "appointment" by the Legislature itself or "appointment" by the People (the latter through the vehicle of what would come to be known as "the Popular Vote"- that is: the result of returns of ballots actually cast by voters in a scheduled election).' ~ by RICHARD E. BERG-ANDERSSON

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/ByWhomElectorsWereAppointed.phtml







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Bureaucrats Tell You Which Doctor:

' Some Americans, particularly those who were uninsured before, may not care if they can only go to certain providers. But others are dismayed that their current doctors aren't in the plans or that they can't go to the ones they think are best for them. Still, others say there are local doctors listed in their networks, but they can't get appointments or the providers aren't accepting new patients.'

' Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma said that she can upgrade the policy to a "choice" plan, which may cost her between $50 and $100 more a month, through healthcare.gov. But the site will not let her switch, and the exchange representatives said she'll have to wait until next year. A Blue Cross spokeswoman said the insurer will help her switch plans now.' ~ by Tami Luhby | March 19, 2014: 10:28 AM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/19/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Gun Control Unduly Impedes Right:

' Gun control = violation of our right to bear arms. We were given such a right so we could protect ourselves from both a tyrannical goverment or an assult on our person/property. By implementing gun control laws we are strip from that right and therefore we are burnable to being either mugs or puppets of a tyrant government.'

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-gun-control-a-violation-of-the-bill-of-rights







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Climate Change Pseudo-Science Eliminating Dissent:

' The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.'

' The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. ' ~ By Christopher Booker 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html




' A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.'

' Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.' ~ NOV 23, 2011 @ 11:38 AM | James Taylor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#65de5a4d988d







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Judicial Activism Re-writing Laws, Nullifying Elections:

' In political rhetoric activism is used as a pejorative. To describe a judge as activist in this sense is to argue that he decides cases on the basis of his own policy preferences rather than a faithful interpretation of the law, thus abandoning the impartial judicial role and “legislating from the bench.”

' Complaints about activism have arisen in most countries where courts exercise significant judicial review, particularly within common-law systems (e.g., at the federal levels in Australia, Canada, and India).' ~ WRITTEN BY: Kermit Roosevelt

https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism




' California voters approved Proposition 8 in 2008 with 52% of the vote shortly after the state Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages are legal. The measure put gay and lesbian marriages on hold in the state, but a federal appeals court later rule Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.'

' In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the court's majority ignored the initiative process that led to the passage of Proposition 8.'

"The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around.... ..In California and the 26 other states that permit initiatives and popular referendums, the people have exercised their own inherent sovereign right to govern themselves. The court today frustrates that choice."

' Kennedy was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.' ~ By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer Updated 8:27 AM ET, Thu June 27, 2013




..So much for voters and legislatures determining the laws as opposed to courts effectively making the law in piling-on, sneaky ways -- whatever your feelings on the same-sex marriage issue may be.

Activist non-sense courts are in effect saying laws that discriminate or treat unequally are no-nos (disparate impact) such as laws against theft and murder discriminating against thieves and serial killers.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-prop-8/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Disenfranchised by Superdelegates:

' Instead of treating Sanders with impartiality, the DNC exhibits resentful disdain toward him and the thousands of disenfranchised voters he could have brought into the party.'

' The party’s rules, including the use of super delegates—who disproportionately endorsed Clinton before the primaries began—are intended to provide the Democratic Party leverage over the election process. Throughout the primaries, decisions were made by DNC officials to help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders.' ~ By Michael Sainato • 07/22/16 2:00pm.

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Back-stabbing the Grassroots Candidates:

“If the only way the K Street wing of the GOP establishment can win is by courting Democrats to vote in GOP primaries, then we’ve already won. Tonight is proof that the K Street establishment is intellectually bankrupt, and we are going to have to clean it up,” Kibbe said.'

' Conservative activist Brent Bozell, whose group ForAmerica ran online ads bashing Cochran, pooh-poohed Cochran for having to “squeak by against a previously little-known state senator thanks to the largesse of the Mississippi and Washington establishments.” ~ By Alexander Burns - 06/24/14 08:00 PM EDT | Updated 06/25/14 10:16 AM EDT




..The infamous Sen. Thad Cochran primary runoff in Mississippi 2014 that showed how the Republican establishment will protect a sell-out candidate over the grassroots constitutionalists. The grassroots supporters cried, "Never Forget !!!"

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/primary-election-2014-108258







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Budgets Late, Non-binding:

“Right now, we have a budget crisis,” he said. “Fixing the budget process will not solve the debt crisis, but we will not solve the debt crisis unless and until we address the dysfunction in our budget process.”

' Other proposed big changes include transforming the budget into a piece of legislation that must be signed into law. Currently the budget serves as a sort of spending blueprint that Congress agrees to but never sends to the president for his signature. As a result, the budget isn’t binding.'

' And Perdue’s plan would require Congress to add nondiscretionary spending—such as Social Security and Medicare—to the budget.' ~ Philip Wegmann / September 30, 2016

http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/30/no-budget-this-senator-says-that-should-mean-pay-cuts-for-politicians-staff/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Paying Iran to Nuke Us:

' Iran has been in almost continuous noncompliance with the treaty it agreed to.'

' When Obama finally tightened the sanctions forcing Iran to the table, he surrendered, especially on the issue of centrifuges that Iran has developed.'

' Obama has regularly tried to oversell Americans on this issue. When he became president, Iran had “thousands of centrifuges” which now would be cut down to around 6,000. In fact, according to the New York Post, in 2008 Iran only had 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s watch, and because of his perceived weakness, that Iran accelerated its nuclear program.'

' The next few months will be nothing less than a supreme test of our skill and our resolve and give the Obama administration the opportunity to manage a fundamental change that improperly handled would threaten American allies and the United States itself.' ~ By Mortimer B. Zuckerman | Chairman, Editor-in-Chief April 17, 2015, at 3:50 p.m.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/04/17/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-an-unforgivable-betrayal-of-israel




' Today’s $490 million release, the third such payment of this amount since Dec. 10, was agreed to by the Obama administration under the parameters of another extension in negotiations over Tehran’s contested nuclear program that was inked in November.'

' Iran has continued to enrich uranium under the interim deal, adding what one critic, Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) referred to as “about one bomb’s worth” to its reserves.'

' Iran also has continued to make advances on the plutonium track, which provides it with a second path to a nuclear bomb.' ~ BY: Adam Kredo January 21, 2015 5:00 am

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-to-award-iran-11-9-billion-through-end-of-nuke-talks/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



State Voter I.D Laws:

' As courts over the last few weeks dealt a series of blows to voter identification laws in states across the country, Indiana’s Secretary of State Connie Lawson was feeling fortunate.'

“So we added protections [against disenfranchisement] that maybe some of the other laws don’t have. And now, our law has stood the test of time. It passed the test with the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s been in place for over a decade now.”

' But critics maintain that the process to verify a provisional ballot during the 10-day period is too burdensome for some people, and that others are choosing to stay at home because they’re intimidated by the law’s requirements.'

“We know they are out there. But because they kind of operate in the shadows of life, we don’t often cross paths with them." ~ Josh Siegel / August 07, 2016




OH PLEASE! LET'S STOP THE WORLD FOR LAZY CRY-BABIES!

..And what documentation do they have to show in order to register? So wouldn't requiring registration just as well be disenfranchisement? The reasoning of this activism bubbling into the judiciary can get quite nonsensical. Lazy or incompetent people should be discouraged from voting whatever their race or numbers.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/07/after-voter-id-defeats-lessons-from-indianas-law-that-has-stood-test-of-time/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



State Abortion Regulations:

' Ruling that Texas' 2013 abortion restrictions place an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Texas abortion providers a major victory by overturning the regulations.'

' In the majority opinion for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court indicated that the facility requirement on abortion clinics does not "benefit patients and is not necessary."

' In a statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the ruling "disappointing" and insisted the decision was passed "to improve patient safety and raise the standard of care for women at abortion facilities." ~ by Alexa Ura June 27, 2016




..Note that the powers that be have yet to repeal Obamacare or overbearing regulations of the F.D.A. that place an undue burden on your right to keep your doctor or to take particular new drugs of promise.

The terms 'abortion' and 'right to privacy' are not in the Constitution but 'no person...deprived of life...without due process' and 'right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches' are. So any real constitutional argument over abortion would thus be over where life begins, when someone is a person and by the tenth amendment the states should determine any abortion regulations before life begins or subsequently what constitutes due process by the fifth amendment. Trying to justify abortion as a constitutional right through 'privacy' is really a fallacy that actually ends up better lending to an argument that elective abortion being such a personally sacred, private choice should not be subsidized by government.

And where does the Supreme Court get the power to call whether a state law is beneficial or necessary? Does not judicial review pertain to the constitutionality (federal or state) of a law or contradictions to other statutes? By the way, does Article III give such standing in this case? How? (U.S. Constitution - Article III : Section 2, paragraphs one and two)

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/us-supreme-court-rules-texas-abortion-case/




State Restriction of Health Insurance Coverage of Abortion : Table

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortion-restriction/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



State Electoral Districts:

' Thanks to three judges, two animal shapes and one hastily redrawn map of U.S. House seats, North Carolina politics have been thrown into chaos.'

' The federal court decision surprised many in the state, especially because the U.S. Department of Justice approved the maps five years ago.'

' The process has created a host of logistical hurdles for elections officials in North Carolina, starting with a process known as geocoding to determine who represents every voter in the state. Next, officials need to reprint more than 4,500 different types of ballots. And then there's the question of who's on the ballot.' ~ Tom Bullock | March 10, 2016 5:00 AM ET




..You'll notice in the pictures just how non-convex the NC districts are - both the old and newer ones!

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/10/469548881/north-carolinas-congressional-primaries-are-a-mess-because-of-these-maps







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Prospective Oil Drilling:

' State regulators and private land owners have decentralized knowledge and the proper incentives to promote economic growth while protecting their environment. They are the ones who have the most to gain when the management of natural resources and economic activity is handled properly, and theyalso have the most to lose if those are mismanaged.'

' The federal government owns nearly one-third of U.S. territory. Congress should consider privatizing some of that land, but in the meantime, transferring the management of federal lands to state regulators would encourage energy resource development on the federal estate while maintaining strong environmental protections.' ~ By Nicolas Loris | May 7, 2014

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/05/federal-regulations-and-federal-ownership-limit-oil-production-potential







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Medical Marijuanna Dispenseries:

' In a victory for state medical marijuana programs and patients, a federal court in California ruled Monday that federal authorities may not shut down medical pot dispensaries operating within state laws.'

' The ruling is a huge win for California’s dispensaries, who have battled with the DEA for years over the legality of their business practices, the Post notes. The decision could also discourage the Department of Justice from cracking down on medical marijuana in the other 23 states with where the substance is legal.' ~ Daniel White | Oct. 20, 2015

http://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ruling/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-








*anchor for an index link*



Executive Orders:

' Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.' ~ By Keith Broaders | October 22, 2011

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/10/are-executive-orders-constitutional/







-Links- -Top- -Bottom-

















TOP



Commonwealth Party
Attention Continued