FRIEND RAISING

I have never been much good at raising money. All my political campaigns were anemically funded, and through my years as President of Cooley Law School, I was never able to tap into the kind of multi million dollar gifts that so many colleges and universities seem to be able to attract.

So it is no surprise to me that my recent overtures to generate funding for Convention USA have not set any records.

Of particular interest, however, is an exchange of emails that was occasioned by my fund raising initiative.

Here is where it started:

Spencer Gantt has posted a comment to your fund:

Your money goal is $100,000.00 So far, you've collected $600.00. Good luck on getting the other $99,400.00. I like your organization. I think it is the right way to go. But, when your first action in this particular quest to "put out the glad hand for money", you are not going to succeed. Every "Tom, Dick & Harry" in the United States has a computer. That's all that you need. You don't need money. Get people to donate their time, effort and zeal, and you just might make it. I'm willing to work "my ___ off" to make this happen. But, I'm not willing to give yours or any such organization even "one thin dime". Let me know what to do.

Here was my reply:

I read your comment on gofundme, Spencer, and I really appreciate your candid comments. I feel much as you do. I have been working my butt off for five years on this project. When I started it, I asked the delegates to pay $10 a month dues. It was very hard to recruit people. I probably collected less than $2,000 in dues. Finally I gave it up and let anyone register as a delegate. We got more people, but it has still been a slow process to recruit delegates.

I have written a book about it, which will be published this Fall. The book explains what we are doing on the Internet. Unfortunately, the web site needs upgrading to be able to perform the way I describe it in the book. I have a  proposal from the web master to do the upgrade for $14,000. So far I have already invested over $30,000 in the web site. My darling wife, God bless her, doesn't want me to spend any more money on the project. I don't blame her. At our age (I'll be 85 next week, she in September) we have to be thinking about the end game.

I am hoping that the book will sell and generate some income that I can spend on the web site. Meantime, I'll take you up on your offer. I have worked with volunteers for many years. One thing I learned is that volunteers don't take orders. You have to let them help you in whatever way they want to help, when they want, and how they want.

So my question, Spencer, what can you do to help? What exactly are your willing to do? Clerical work? Communications? Recruiting delegates? Let me know. I'm glad to welcome you aboard.

One thing you might do is to register as a delegate. It doesn't cost anything and takes only about a minute of your valuable time. Not exactly working off any part of your anatomy.

That email brought the following rejoinder from Mr. Gantt:

Hello, Mr. Brennan, 

I read your email over several times, and I appreciate your talking to me. Yes, you've been at this a long time, it seems, and I hope your efforts come to fruition soon. I only recently began to have an interest in this situation when Michigan became the 34th State to request a Constitutional Convention in accordance with Article V. Also, my daughter (age 44) became very enthusiastic about this event about a week ago and has been "hammering" me about it since. 

If your wife has "put the brakes" on your efforts with the web-site, that may be a good thing. If $30,000 hasn't brought you much success in five years, it's doubtful any more money would help. As far as age is concerned, I understand what you mean. I'll be 73 myself next month. 

I have a web-site, www.people-south.com, and under the "government" tab, there is a section called "Constitution" which I will change to "Constitutional Convention" this weekend. In this section I will be posting articles about Article V and what is happening in today's world regarding same. Also, today I created a Facebook page called "Article V Convention". I will be using this to promote a convention as well as my site. 

I will register as a delegate, and will promote your site as much as possible. I would like to reference your site, and post various of your articles and info on my site and/or on the page with your permission, of course. I will do everything I can in promoting what you have already done, because I feel we have the "chance of a lifetime" here and there's not much time left. I hope we can make a difference. 

Judging by your name, I suspect you must be of some kin to the Supreme Court Justice, William J. Brennan, Jr. 

Sincerely, 

That email prompted another from me:

Spencer:

When I was the Chief Justice of Michigan in 1970, I attended a symposium in Colorado which included an opportunity to meet President Nixon. As I approached him in the receiving line, he read my name tag and said, "Ah, Judge Brennan from Michigan. Are you related to Justice William Brennan on the United States Supreme Court?"

"No, Mr. President," I said, " I am not related to him by consanguinity, affinity, or philosophy." Nixon had a hearty laugh.

I am delighted to hear that you will register as a delegate and help us to recruit more delegates. I don't know how much you have seen about our plan. The goal is to recruit 6,166 delegates - one for every 50,000 people in the U.S.

We already have the apportionment plan. There are 1,186 districts, drawn along county lines. In every district the ratio of constituents to delegates is not less that one to 45,000 nor more that one to 55,000.

I will send you a link that will allow you to see the map of every state and the convention districts in each. It's a home made job, but it's accurate.

The long range goal is to elect delegates in November of every even numbered year and to convene the convention in May of every odd numbered year. Delegates won't have to attend in person, but will be able to watch the proceedings on their computers - even participate remotely - and all delegates will be able to vote on all issues using their computers.

The big problem, of course, is credibility. Getting 6,166 delegates from all over the country, will go a long way toward giving us credibility. Another factor will be that our delegates will not just be volunteers, but will be elected by the people in their districts. These elections will be held on the Internet. The system of electing delegates on the Internet is one of the upgrades I am trying to do on the web site.

All for now. Again, thanks for your interest.

TEB

And I added this tidbit:

Spencer:

The web site that shows all the delegate districts is www.usconcon.com

As I said, it's a home made job but when I get some of that naughty old stuff called money, maybe I can get it done professionally.

(Couldn't resist)

By then Spencer Gantt seemed interested:

Sir, 

Thanks for your prompt response. I wasn't sure I had gotten through. Let me mull this over for a bit. I've had a "rough day" with my own web-site and need some "sit back for a while" time. I admire and appreciate what you are trying to do. With people being the way they are, I know it's difficult to get their attention (in large numbers). But I feel that as a People we cannot afford to let this opportunity pass by as it won't ever come again, I'm sure. 

I'll get back with you later this evening. And, thanks again for responding. That in and of itself is unusual. 

Spencer Gantt

This is what he ‘got back’ with:

Sir, I'm puzzled. This site and convention that you are running, how will it be recognized by the "powers that be", that is, by the Congress or whoever approves a convention? Will this be the "actual" convention, or as just a group of people having their own convention?

My reply:

Spencer:

A very good question. What Convention USA does will only be recognized by "the powers that be" when it becomes a significant political movement. It will only become a significant political movement if the amendment or amendments that it proposes are popular with the American people.

The "powers that be" are only the "powers that be"  as long as the general population allows them to be the "powers that be." When the general public agrees upon and supports a constitutional amendment, the "powers that be" will scramble to get on board and pretend that it was their idea in the first place.

Do I think that the mainstream media will be receptive to what we do? Of course not. The mainstream media are part of the ruling oligarchy in America. Do I think that ordinary citizens can overcome the mainstream media and the "powers that be"? You better hope we can, otherwise the nation founded in 1787 will not survive the twenty-first century.

Spencer Gantt will surely be as good as his word when it comes to donating money. I can only hope that I have made a new friend for Convention USA. 

MADAM PRESIDENT

It looks like Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. She has paid her dues and certainly has the credentials to seek the nomination of her party.

And, of course, the enthusiastic support of many women voters who have been waiting since 1920 to vote for a female candidate.

I think it is time.

I think it is time for the Republican Party to say to Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christy, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, and whoever, “Fellas, it just ain’t your turn."

Then the powers that be in the GOP should go hat in hand to the four female members of their party who have quietly, efficiently, and effectively proven their ability and readiness to be the President of the United States and beg them to make themselves available to be drafted as the standard bearer in 2016.

Here they are:

SUSANA MARTINEZ

In 2010, Susana Martinez was elected of the State of New Mexico. She became New Mexico’s first female Governor and the first Hispanic female elected Governor in the history of the United States.

She was named by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 Most Influential People in the world in 2013, one of only two Governors who made the list. In April 2011, Hispanic Business Magazine named Martinez “Woman of the Year” for her efforts to reduce the tax burden on New Mexicans, get the state’s fiscal house in order, and promote a friendlier business environment allowing employers to create jobs and hire New Mexico workers. National Review wrote, “She is principled and pragmatic. She has a sure sense of philosophy but is also keen on the details …She both advocates and exemplifies the American Dream. Yes, you can forgive people their excitement over Susana Martinez.”

NIKKI HALEY

Born in Bamberg, S.C., the daughter of Indian immigrants, Governor Haley’s first job was keeping the books for her family’s clothing store – at the age of 13. She graduated from Clemson University with a bachelor of science degree in accounting and, following her graduation, worked as Accounting Supervisor for a private company and five of its subsidiaries. She then returned to the family business and helped oversee its growth into a multi-million dollar operation

For her efforts to cut taxes and slow the growth of government spending, Governor Haley was named “Friend of the Taxpayer” by the S.C. Association of Taxpayers in 2011. She has lifetime “A” ratings from the South Carolina Club for Growth, the Palmetto Family Council, and the National Rifle Association.  She received the 2011 State Leadership Award from the United States Chamber of Commerce.

One of the strongest fiscal conservatives in state government, Governor Haley was elected to represent the 87th district in Lexington County in 2004 when, as a virtual unknown, she beat the longest serving state legislator in a Republican primary.  In 2008, then-Representative Haley was sent back to the Statehouse with 83 percent of the vote – the highest percentage earned by any lawmaker facing a contested South Carolina election that year.

JAN BREWER

Born in 1944 to Wilford and Edna Drinkwine, Jan Brewer grew up in Southern California. She lost her father at an early age, after he fell ill due to years spent breathing poisonous fumes while working at a Naval ammunitions depot. Edna Drinkwine, widowed and with two young children, did the only thing she could in facing this challenge: Meet it head-on.
So, she took all of her savings and opened a dress shop. Her daughter worked right beside her – with that small dress shop acting as a living classroom on the value of a dollar, the importance of hard work and the resilience inside every one of us.

Jan Brewer never forgot those lessons. They helped lead her to run for elected office in 1982 when, now married and with a young family of her own, Ms. Brewer grew concerned about her children’s education. She was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives, where she served until 1987. Following that, she ran for and was elected to the Arizona State Senate. She served until 1996, including a four-year period as Majority Whip.
In 1996, Ms. Brewer was elected to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. She inherited a local government bogged-down so deeply in debt that it was using short-term borrowing just to meet cash flow. Ms. Brewer was elected Board Chairwoman in 1998 and again in 2001. By the conclusion of her term in 2002, she and her fellow Supervisors had executed a financial turnaround so dramatic that Governing Magazine proclaimed Maricopa County “one of the two best managed large counties in the nation.”
After serving two terms with the county, Ms. Brewer was elected Arizona Secretary of State in 2002, and became Governor on the resignation of Janet Napolitano, In 2010, Jan Brewer was elected o a full term as Governor with 55% of the votes.

MARY FALLIN

Governor Mary Fallin is the first woman to be elected Governor of Oklahoma. She also currently serves as the chair of the National Governors Association, a bipartisan group representing all of the nation’s Governors.

Prior to her historic election in 2011, Fallin represented the people of Oklahoma in a number of state and federal positions. She served two terms as a state representative before becoming Oklahoma’s first Republican and first woman Lieutenant Governor in 1995. From 2006 to 2010, she served as a member of the United States House of Representatives.

As Governor, Fallin cites job growth and retention, education reform and workforce development, government modernization and the elimination of government waste as top priorities. During Fallin’s administration, Oklahoma has consistently ranked among the top states for job creation.

During her first year as Governor, Fallin balanced the state budget while closing a $500 million deficit and lowering the income tax rate.  That year, she also saw many of her legislative priorities signed into law, including lawsuit reform, comprehensive education reform, and government modernizations.

In subsequent legislative sessions, the Governor signed into law a historic overhaul of the workers’ compensation system that will lower costs for businesses. She also successfully pursued improvements and funding increases in education, health care and infrastructure.

None of these four executives are actively seeking the Presidency. Their reticence is not only ladylike, but it also harkens back to a day when the President of the United States did not assume the trappings of monarchy.

A  campaign between Hilary Clinton and any one of those women would be a contest between those who believe that the United States is a federal republic consisting of fifty sovereign states and a national government with limited, specified powers, and those who believe that the United States is a single sovereign nation that rules the states and all the people in them.

It would be a very interesting year.

BUNDY: ONE MORE TIME

April 28. The sixty-third anniversary of my marriage to the beautiful Polly. I woke up at 4AM.
Too old to play slap and tickle. Besides, I have a cold. So I write another blog.

I am still being lectured by those who think my opinion in the Bundy matter is contrary to the law. So let’s begin at the beginning.

 Here is what Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says:

[Congress shall have the power] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards, and other needful Buildings…

So, under the Constitution, the federal government’s exclusive right to make laws concerning land in the United States, is limited to Washington, D.C. and such other land as complies with these four conditions:

1.   It has purchased

2.   With the consent of the State Legislature

3.   For Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock Yards

4  For other needful Buildings

You will please note that Article I, Section 8 does not mention:

1.   Parks

2.   Wet lands

3.   Habitats for endangered species

4.   Forests

5.   Mineral rights

6.   Grazing rights

7.   Renting land to others as a source of revenue 

8.   Etc., etc., etc.

No one questions the right of the United States to make laws concerning real estate OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; i.e. Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. But inside the United States, the federal government has no power to make laws concerning real estate, except as granted under Article I, Section 8. And that means it has no power to make laws concerned vacant land situated in one of the fifty States.

So what can the federal government do with 86% of Nevada? Just two things:

1.   Sell it

2.   Give it to the State or some other entities.

Now just in case you may still think this is just the rambling of an old, retired, out-of-touch State Court Judge, I invite you to read a very pertinent article at:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm, written by Lowell H. Becraft, Jr.
,209 Lincoln Street, 
Huntsville, Alabama 3580.

Mr. Becraft cites the following state and federal court decsions:

M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808)

Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827)

People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819)

Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818),

United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed.Cas. 646, 648 No. 14,867 (C.C.D.R.I. 1819)

New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836)

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837)

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)

Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885)

Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 50 S.Ct. 455 (1930)

United States. In James v. Dravo Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208 (1937)

Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of State of Washington, 302 U.S. 186, 58 S.Ct. 233 (1937)

Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474, 66 S.Ct. 663 (1946)

Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628 (1943)

Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S.Ct. 617 (1943)

S.R.A. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 66 S.Ct. 749 (1946)

Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963)

United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973)

Representatives of the Western States met in Salt Lake City recently for the purpose of addressing the problems associated with federal ownership of vacant lands.

Maybe they should talk about calling an Article V amendatory constitutional convention.

I can give them a few names of folks who think that would be a good idea. 

MORE BUNDY

I often receive letters and comments about my blog and I very much appreciate and enjoy the chance to banter with friends and readers. Here is a brief exchange which may help to explain my position.

Hey Judge,

I must respond to your message regarding Mr. Bundy of Nevada.  Over 20 years Mr. Bundy has lost numerous cases in Court regarding his non payment of grazing fees on federal lands.  I'm sure if you or I chose to not pay the federal government our taxes, we certainly would be subject to the consequences of our actions.  Not being a lawyer or judge, I am assuming that the judgments by the courts handed down over the years regarding Mr. Bundy's failure to pay up are lawful and correct.  Therefore, he is subject to the consequences of his actions.

We are a nation of states who have agreed to the federal system of government and who abide by the U S Constitution, a government which Mr. Bundy does not recognize.......how convenient.

As a citizen, not a lawyer, I consider Mr. Bundy a welfare cheat and his time to pay up is well past due.

Respectfully,

Dan Santucci

Dan:

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'm afraid my blog dealt with a very fine legal point which is difficult to explain. What I basically said, and believe, is that when a state is admitted to the union it takes jurisdiction over all the territory within its borders, even that which is still owned by the federal government. If the feds want to keep someone off of their land in Nevada they should have to go to the Nevada courts, just like any other owner of land in Nevada. 

The feds see it differently. In their view the land is not in Nevada, it is a separate federal territory like Puerto Rico. That's why they go to federal courts to enforce their rights, and that's why they enforce their rights with guns instead of pursuing a civil remedy like filing a lien against Bundy's property.

TEB

BUNDY REVISITED

John C. Calhoun was the seventh Vice President of the United States under both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. He was the Secretary of War in the administration of James Monroe, and Secretary of State under John Tyler. He represented the State of South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1845 until his death in 1850.

A lawyer and a graduate of Yale University, Calhoun was known as an able political theorist in his day. Some of his ideas would shock the ears of Americans today.

Calhoun was an adamant defender of slavery, and he did it in a sophisticated and academic fashion.

To begin with, he took issue with the Declaration of Independence’s famous assertion that all men are created equal. He insisted that only two human beings were created: Adam and Eve. All the rest were born. And they weren’t born as men; they were infants.

To Calhoun, liberty was not a right. Nor was it a gift. Liberty, to Calhoun, was a prize, a reward, if you will, conferred only on human beings who earned it by their conduct and their character. Enlightened, civilized, law abiding, virtuous men and women were capable of enjoying freedom. For them, very little government is needed. Ignorant, greedy, violent, selfish people require more and more government as their conduct intrudes on the freedom of others.

Calhoun believed that the worst kind of despotic dictatorship is better than anarchy. Like James Madison, he agreed that if men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Calhoun was a slave owner who defended the institution of slavery in the southern states.  He was a candid and unapologetic racist, who believed that people of African descent were genetically inferior to those of Caucasian ancestry.

Assuming Calhoun was true to his own words, however, it is hard to believe that he would not have agreed with and applauded Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dramatic “I have a Dream” speech. Especially King’s hope that someday his children would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Presumably both Calhoun and Madison would concede that black angels wouldn’t need government either.

I thought of Calhoun  as I read about Cliven Bundy’s stupid and stumbling attempt to explain his inexplicable racial comments. His Hollywood inspired vision of slavery as a life of family oriented, gospel singing, home-and- hearth security and happiness is not only disgusting and wrongheaded, it is an insult to the vast majority of Americans, black and white, who embrace the words of the Declaration of Independence in their true and transcendent meaning.

I am sure that my law professor friend who took me to task for defending “that wing-nutty cowboy” in Nevada has been gleefully chuckling over Bundy’s downfall.

I am left with the difficult task of reminding him that even guilty people are entitled to have a lawyer for their defense, that the ACLU has frequently defended the right of Nazi-type organizations to protest and demonstrate, and that even the most despicable villain is entitled to the protection of the constitution.

It’s an uphill battle, people being what they are.

Alexander Hamilton launched the Federalist Papers with the observation that political discourse is often characterized by an intolerant spirit, which unleashes a torrent of angry and malignant passions. Judging by their conduct, you would think, he says, that many partisans hope to make converts by the “loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invective.”

That said, I firmly believe that a sense of humor is critically essential to useful political discourse. I don’t mind a good natured barb or two being thrown my way, and I treasure long standing friends who can take a little kidding in their stride.

On the whole, I believe that politics is too serious to be taken too seriously.