This section of Mr. Jefferson's Challenge is reserved for you. The Editors and Publishers will only utilize this space to respond to your comments. This is your opportunity to express your views and to solicit ideas from other American citizens. We expect this section to become the largest and most important section of Mr. Jefferson's Challenge.
As we receive public input to Mr. Jefferson's Challenge, we will publish excerpts and responses in "The American Citizenry Speaks!" within our published newsletter (hard copy).
"The American Citizenry Speaks!" segment of our Home Page serves a slightly different purpose. Within the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge Home Page, "The American Citizenry Speaks!" is an online bulletin board, where the Publishers and members of the public routinely interact to exchange ideas on the state of the New American Revolution. We update this segment regularly to reflect incoming public commentary. We sincerely hope you will engage in this public dialog on the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge Home Page.
All public comments submitted after April 25, 1996, are listed below in chronological order, with the most recent first. Where we provided a response, it will be posted immediately following the Citizen comment. All Citizen comments submitted before April 25, 1996, are listed at the end of this page, in no particular order and without the posting dates specified.
We have provided this listing of selected Citizen comments and Mr. Jefferson's Challenge Publisher responses to assist you in reviewing "The American Citizenry Speaks!" page. Simply click on the topic of your choice here to move to that area, or scroll through the entire page.
Jefferson's
Vision for American Democracy; The Direct Democracy Center
2nd Amendment,
militias, role of the People, and related topics
Information
on Dr. Clay Jenkinson, Thomas Jefferson interpreter
Scope of
the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge project
The War
Powers Act of 1973; the authority of the President and Congress to initiate
war
The "First
Continental Convention," scheduled for July 4, 1999
Submit
your comments to Mr. Jefferson's Challenge via e-mail
Subj: Self-Responsibility
Date: 96-06-29 20:39:05 EDT
From:
mrosenbe@bayou.uh.edu (Michael Rosenberg)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Lately, there have been people, political figures and citizens, who say that it is the government's responsibility to make sure that we do not watch something on TV or at the movies that will derange us. Listen here to a NEW idea. I do not want the government telling me what to do in MY OWN HOME!! I feel that is my responsibility to decide if the shows me and my family are watching are appropriate. There is this neat little invention that is standard on every TV set -- the button that says "on/off". If you do not like what you are watching, turn the damn TV off. Don't be stupid and let the government decide for you. This is the responsibility of EVERY American. I realize that you can't watch your kids all the time, but when you do, let them know what is okay.
Tony Rosenberg, Proud Citizen of The U.S.A.
Subj: Subscription and e-mail list
Date: 96-06-27 23:56:32
EDT
From: xcreep@ao.net (xcreep)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Hi,
This is the first time I accessed your site and like the ideas you presented here. I would like to join your subscription and e-mail list.
Thanks. I will be revisiting your site. I am glad to see that the concerns of the people are being listened to. It is so easy now to be in contact with every person in the nation. A consensus can be easily formed on all public policy. I believe we have a right to be heard, and now is the time.
Brian, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Direct Democracy
Date: 96-06-25 19:00:50
EDT
From: conduit@primenet.com (Dan Jeffs)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
I wonder how many people know about Thomas Jefferson's underlying, but unrealized vision for democracy in America.
Jefferson studied the birth of democracy in Athens, Greece in the 5th century, BC. He knew about their struggles with it, and the fulfillment of it through Pericles and direct democracy. The Athenians built a great civilization that lasted over 200 years, until it fell under the pressure of the incessant wars of kings and rulers who surrounded the Athenian society.
Democracy did not surface again until the American Revolution of 1776. Now, in 1996, we continue the struggle of the unfinished revolution. Jefferson's dream for democracy in America was that of Athenian direct democracy.
Not until now, could we have shared Jefferson's dream. The communications technology revolution can provide the way to fulfill Jefferson's dream, and ours. There is the challenge. Direct democracy by means of voting networks connected to every voter's home, so the public can decide public policy.
Jefferson said the Constitution should be revisited and revised at least every 25 years. We're about 200 years overdue. A constitutional amendment establishing direct democracy could make-up for lost time.
Daniel B. Jeffs, Founder
The Direct Democracy Center
http://www.primenet.com/~conduit/
Subj: Responsibility and Reason
Date: 96-06-25 11:39:38 EDT
From: mrosenbe@Bayou.UH.EDU (michael rosenberg)
To:
MrJeffChlg@aol.com
Sir,
In response to your letter from 6-23-96 to me, please allow me to say a few (sic) things. These are mainly responses to the questions which you have posed to me.
1) You asked me if I think that the Founding Fathers, if they were alive today, would be happy with what the country has become. I think that YES they would be ecstatic. Not necessarily by what SOCIETY has become, but more by what government has become. Let me elaborate blatantly. They wrote a living document (humor me). A document able to change as the need arises. Over the past 220 years, the Constitution has proven that it can do this. The Constitution has been a formidable ally to the people (on the whole),and also a formidable ally to the government. Written into the Constitution is the cheques of power between the branches of the Federal Government. This asset to the people was exposed recently with the balanced budget nonsense. The Founding Fathers would be overjoyed to know that there was that much bickering between branches (the main reason that the cheques are in the document). The Fathers did not want any one branch to be able to do anything on its own. Wa-la, it's working.
2) You were talking of the "militia." I think the best definition of the "militia" can be found in something written by the Federal Government itself. The United States Federal Government says that the militia is ". .. all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age . . . and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers in the National Guard" (U.S. Code 311). Along the same lines of the 2nd Amendment, I think that one must know who "the people" are that are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. In 1989, the Supreme Court of the U.S., in U.S v Verdugo-Urquidez, said that:
"[T]he people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares . . . ordained and established by "the People of the United States." . . . and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." . . . "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection.
Clearly, the Supreme Court states that "the people" refers to everyone who is already a citizen of the United States or intends to become one. In the case of Dred Scott v Sanford, Chief Justice Taney also made a similar statement:
If African Americans were citizens, it [the Constitution] would give to persons of the negro race . . . the full liberty of speech . . .to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. These interpretations of the law recognize "the people" as citizens of the United States. If this is the case, these same "people" are members of the militia of the State in which they live.
3) I do not think that people need to be responsible to their government. I think that the government needs to be made to be responsible to their people. By the people making the government accountable, the people regain control. In other words,'keep a reign on the government.'
Thank you for putting me an the email list, and I have emailed my mailing address for the newsletter.
Tony Rosenberg, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Re: Subscription Confirmation; Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Date:
96-06-23 22:11:25 EDT
From: JjP3871
To: MrJeffChlg
Yes, I do have a strange question...How can you afford to do this? I mean, how do you make money with free subscriptions -- or do you do this as a public service?
Thanks
Jean Garofalo, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Re: Subscription Confirmation; Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Date: 06/24/96
To: JjP3871
Dear Jean,
It's not such a strange question; I get asked the question often, especially from friends and family. I'm trying to project to American Citizens sincere motives; I'm very careful not to "ask" anything of them for myself. It places an additional burden on me, but I have accepted my role voluntarily. Americans are so cynical today, because so few are willing to "do the right thing" unless that includes a personal payoff. Among other things, I'm trying to set an example that this isn't always the case. There are more of us out there than you probably think. Perhaps you're one yourself.
Incidentally, you ask "how can I afford it." Well, I really can't. But I'll keep plugging away at it anyway.
Sincerely,
Jim Long, U.S. Citizen and Publisher
Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Subj: US Postal Service Violates Employees Constitutional, Civil,
& Privacy Rights
Date: 96-06-18 02:54:29 EDT
From:
103035.3222@compuserve.com
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
My employer, the US Postal Service, most recently disqualified me from supervising for them any more because of my involvement in advocating my wife's (ex-Postal Worker) rights as her representative in an ongoing EEOC investigation in to the Postal Service's violation of her FMLA rights.
I have charged several high level Postal Officials with collusion and have also petitioned investigations from the Department of Labor, Wage & Hour Division, and our local Congressman, Howard p. "Buck" McKeon, and as a result, there are now three ongoing investigations not only in to my wife's issue, but now even for myself as I have been subjected to intense hostile fire from my manager at the Postal Service.
I was going to take what I thought a few days off, for the on the job injury (stress) that I suffered as a result of my demotion, to settle my nerves and catch my bearings. They never acknowledge my request for treatment, only mandating me to a "Psychiatric Fitness For Duty Evaluation," their answer to my official requests for medical treatment, and a halt to work place harassment. One day prior to my mandated "evaluation," I forwarded a cancellation of release of medical information including citations and the enforcing agencies.
At my appointed evaluation I was met by a Postal Inspector and a Senior Labor Relations Manager at the doctors office that asked to search my attache case for "weapons," and further told me that they had reason to believe I constituted a threat to the doctor because of the strong letter I had sent him, claiming I had threatened him. The cancellation of medical information letter simply stated the statutes, enforcement agencies, and stated that any injury to me as a result of the release of medical information would constitute legal grounds to sue.
After my bag was searched (I don't own or have any guns), the Labor Relations Manager from the Postal Service insisted on attending my evaluation in the doctor's office. I protested and the alleged evaluation came to an abrupt end and my employer promptly rescheduled me 4 days later to another quack of a psychiatrist that asked more fact finding type of questions than about why I left work on stress.
My own personal family doctor gave me a return to work slip one week prior to the doctors visit in which I was met by the Inspector but the Postal Service would not accept it. It's almost been a month now that I've been ready to go back to work and they are stalling me.
There's much more to this but bottom line it all started because of
1. My right to represent my wife in an EEO complaint.
2. My refusal to perform illegal prohibited personnel practices which would violate my subordinates privacy rights.
3. Exercising my own legal right to limit the dissemination of certain medical information for the sake of my own privacy.
4. Petitioning my Senior Plant Manager to put a stop to the harassment and hostile actions from my manager.
5. My manager has now libeled me by denying the fact she disqualified me from supervising any more for my involvement as an EEO representative.
I CONTEND THAT THIS TYPE OF ABUSE OF AUTHORITY IS INDICATIVE OF OUR PRESENT GOVERNMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THIS MOST GRACIOUS BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY THAT OUR FOREFATHERS SET UP FOR US, "THE PEOPLE," I PROTEST AND SHOUT OUT LOUD & CLEAR, "I'D RATHER DIE A THOUSAND TIMES WITH MY DIGNITY, THAN TO LIVE BUT ONCE A COWARD."
MAY GOD BLESS OUR ENDEAVORS AND "THE STRUGGLE IN SUPPRESSING OUR OPPRESSORS," may they GO TO HELL.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Anonymous, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Nutcase
Date: 96-06-17 16:10:19 EDT
From:
rayevans@argonet.co.uk (Mr Raymond Evans)
Reply-to:
rayevans@argonet.co.uk (Mr Raymond Evans)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Republican revolution? You must be mad!
Raymond Evans, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Re: Nutcase
Date: 06/17/96
To:
rayevans@argonet.co.uk
Dear Mr. Evans,
I'm not sure what your point is here, Mr. Evans. When we talk about "revolution" in the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge project, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called "Republican Revolution," which is both a misnomer and a myth.
Your political positions, which may be consistent with my own, are not served well by such reckless and cryptic e-mails.
I'd be happy to answer any of your questions about the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge project that are not adequately addressed in our Web Site.
Sincerely,
Jim Long, U.S. Citizen and Publisher
Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Subj: Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Date: 96-06-17
10:22:48 EDT
From: mrosenbe@bayou.uh.edu (Michael Rosenberg)
To:
mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Recently, I have become very interested in the Constitution. I find the document very interesting because of its viability as the one remaining document in effect which states what the founding fathers wanted the nation to BECOME. I believe that, at the time, the fathers did not know how to sedate all the constituents. they wrote the Constitution as a living document. It has the ability to change to meet ever increasing needs of the American social life. I believe that the Constitution, as it was written, provides the frame work for most any problem that could possibly be encountered. Lately, I have been doing research on the 2nd Amendment. This topic has been, and will continue to be, the subject of much debate.
After just six months of research, I find that it is also a great example of how the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. In today's world, people are bent on "what's good for me?" When, in conjunction with the 2nd Amendment, Thomas Jefferson said it was the DUTY of men to change their government if they do not like it, he was, in effect, telling us today to VOTE if you do not like what is going on. Of course, this translates into:"if you don't vote you can't complain."
We all have the right and duty, as Americans, to keep the reigns on our government. Those of you who do not think it is possible are already hopelessly lost in the governmental scheme of a larger central government.
Tony Rosenberg, U.S. Citizen and
Public Policy Specialist
Subj: Re: Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Date: 06/23/96
To:
mrosenbe@bayou.uh.edu
Dear Mr. Rosenberg,
Thank you for your comments; they will be posted in "The American Citizenry Speaks!" section of our Web Page, and may be published in the next newsletter. (We are currently behind schedule. We are still preparing the "June 1" issue.)
Although you did not indicate that you would like to be added to our Internet (email) mailing list, I have taken the liberty of doing so. The service is free. Generally, this service involves one email every other month describing the content of the current issue of the newsletter. Occasionally, we will distribute other announcements. I have copied the standard confirmation message below. If you would also like to receive free hard copies of the newsletter via U.S. Post, please email your snail mail address.
I would also like to respond to some of your comments.
1. I believe that, at the time, the fathers did not know how to sedate all the constituents. they wrote the Constitution as a living document. It has the ability to change to meet ever increasing needs of the American social life. I believe that the Constitution, as it was written, provides the frame work for most any problem that could possibly be encountered.
I think you share this view with most Americans. Do you think that, if our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would be happy (or satisfied) with what America has become?
2. Lately, I have been doing research on the 2nd Amendment. This topic has been, and will continue to be, the subject of much debate.
True enough. I suspect you have already done this, but I have found much insight on the 2nd Amendment by studying the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (the governing document for America before the Constitution). As you know, the 2nd Amendment hinges on the definition of "militia," and whether this right to keep and bear arms was targeted at the People or the States. Although many Constitutional lawyers would assert otherwise, "militias" are described fairly well in the Articles of Confederation. Militias were created, maintained, and controlled by the State Legislatures, even though the militias comprised Citizens from that State who used their own firearms. As such, I think the 2nd Amendment was primarily a protection for the States against tyranny by the new federal government. The States were guaranteed the right to maintain armed units as the ultimate deterrent against federal encroachment. The First Congress, in drafting the 2nd Amendment, recognized that the individual citizens would actually be keeping the arms during peacetime, and the Congress tried to clarify that the States retained the authority to regulate this practice in pretty much any way the States saw fit. (Of course, this attempt by Congress to clarify State authority actually created the ambiguity that is still debated today.) If you accept this interpretation, then the State Legislatures retain the authority to regulate -- up to and including prohibiting gun ownership altogether -- within State borders. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, however, has no right to regulate firearms within State borders.
Of course, this interpretation is hardly consistent with State and Federal legislation and policy, but our government often doesn't comply with its own laws.
3. When, in conjunction with the 2nd Amendment, Thomas Jefferson said it was the DUTY of men to change their government if they do not like it, he was, in effect, telling us today to VOTE if you do not like what is going on. Of course, this translates into:"if you don't vote you can't complain."
I think I just heard Thomas Jefferson rolling over in his grave. Jefferson recognized that governments are established by "governors" to control the "governed." When these governments are established, the People are granted some degree of influence over the government. For the United States under the Constitution, this influence included some powers via the ballot box. (Although this power of the vote is far less significant than most Americans believe.) To more accurately reflect Thomas Jefferson's philosophy, you should state "if you don't think your vote grants you sufficient political power, you should try to overthrow the government, even if that involves violence."
4. We all have the right and duty, as Americans, to keep the reigns on our government. Those of you who do not think it is possible are already hopelessly lost in the governmental scheme of a larger central government.
I'm afraid you've lost me here. The primary theme of the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge project is to encourage the American People to assume their responsibility as American Citizens. In so doing, they must assume responsibility for the actions of their government, and demand changes in their government if its actions don't properly reflect the will of the People. I not only think it's possible for the American Citizenry to "keep the reigns on our government," I think it is a requirement of citizenship. I simply believe that the U.S. Constitution and many Federal and State laws greatly hinder the People from doing this job. Our "governors" (those who "govern" us) do all they can to prevent us from assuming this responsibility. (If our elected leaders really wanted the People to have more oversight and influence in governmental policy, legislatures could pass numerous laws tomorrow granting broader oversight powers to the People.) The fact that our job is made far more difficult than it ought to be does not change our responsibility to control our government, and to change it if necessary.
Sincerely,
Jim Long, U.S. Citizen and Publisher
Mr. Jefferson's
Challenge
Subj: Clay Jenkinson
Date: 96-06-10 11:10:35
EDT
From: RAWLIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu (ANNE RAWLINSON)
To:
mrjeffchlg@aol.com
I noticed that one of your contributors asked about Clay Jenkinson, who does scholarly impersonations of Jefferson. If anyone would like to contact him they may do so by sending him email at Jeffysage@aol.com or by contacting me at rawlin@vms.cis.pitt.edu. I am in the process of setting up a Jefferson web site which will include a page on Dr. Jenkinson's work.
I'll tell you as soon as the page is up. Since I'm designing it now, let me know if there is information on Jefferson which you would particularly like to see on a web page. So far it will have links to all of Jefferson's writings on the web and Jefferson sites (including yours), lists of Jefferson readings, information on Dr. Jenkinson's work as a Jefferson interpreter, and some pages similar to yours in which readers send in questions and Dr. Jenkinson answers as Jefferson. Anne Rawlinson Research assistant to Clay Jenkinson University of Pittsburgh
Anne Rawlinson, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Re: Clay Jenkinson
Date: 06/13/96
To:
RAWLIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Dear Anne,
Since you asked....
I've found that most Americans in 1996 hear a quote from Jefferson and think of it as if someone said it in 1996. If there is some way in your web site to explain to Internet users that these democratic ideals were strange new concepts for most people in the late 1700s. Most Americans and Europeans were more comfortable with monarchies and ruling classes. The BOLDNESS of Jeffersonian philosophy gets lost in American thinking in 1996. And, in my opinion, it is this LACK of political boldness that is handcuffing America today. Thomas Jefferson would not be proud today.
Please stay in touch,
Jim Long, U.S. Citizen and Publisher
Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Subj: Direct Democracy
Date: 96-06-10 20:21:22 EDT
From:
conduit@primenet.com (Dan Jeffs)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Our country has been betrayed by the decay of democracy. Jefferson's inner vision for America was based on the birth of democracy in 5th century BC Athens, Pericles and the first direct democracy. Thomas Paine knew it when he wrote Common Sense, promoting the American Revolution. The revolution was never fully realized.
We at the Direct Democracy Center are beginning an effort to establish direct democracy and direct education in California and the United States. Please visit our new site (under revisions) at http://www.primenet.com/~conduit/
Please add our site to your list. We will do the same.
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Dan Jeffs, U.S. Citizen and Founder
Direct Democracy Center
Subj: new subscriber
Date: 96-05-18 01:05:51 EDT
From:
75534@dub-mail-svc-1.compuserve.com
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Excited to stumble onto this forum, as I, too, am a very new net user, and am hurrying through various sites here. As a teacher (sub), I am very concerned about not only our government, but the multicultural influences and the changes in our school systems, partly due to big union influences. When I figure out what I am doing here, will be a regular here. Good luck to us all.
Anonymous, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Hard copy subscription
Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Date:
96-05-17 22:31:15 EDT
From: looker@global2000.net (looker)
To:
mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Dear Sir;
Please put me on your hard copy subscription list and your e-mail list to notify me of new releases. I've been a fan of Milton and Rose Friedman for years and just read The Law by Frederic Bastiat. I think we need to eliminate ALL socialism. God bless you.
Andrew Looker, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Return America to the People
Date: 96-05-13 19:14:52
EDT
From: TagFund@ns.net (Tom Caruthers)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
What a wonderful net sight! A conscientious exchange of ideas, which must lead to action. We can all pontificate the Constitution, and how it applies to today's America, until we are red, white and blue in the face! But eventually, the People of America must unite, if we are to make change.
Imagine this: 2 million Americans, marching on Washington, D.C., to the steps of Congress (while in session), with a petition, or manifesto of sorts (including the original Constitution), which states: "We're Mad as Hell, and We're Not Going to take it, Anymore"! Of course, I'm paraphrasing; many of you, much smarter than I, will have to draft it.
We should convene a People's Congress, to draft this document, stating our demands.
There's strength in numbers. Once it catches hold, Americans will come out from under their respective rocks, and join the march. The media will go nuts. I think it will work!
For some ideas, I have a home page to suggest; http://www.usa.net/uclr/. It discusses the tenet that legal reform is at the root of our problems, or is, at least, a place to start. It suggests this country is governed by, and for, attorneys (we have two in the White House!). I have no vested interest in that home page, but find it good food for thought.
Let's talk the talk, then let's walk the walk!
I'll march on Washington, will you?
Keep the good stuff coming.
Thanks,
Tom Caruthers, U.S. Citizen
Subj: American Citizenry Speaks!
Date: 96-05-07 03:36:41 EDT
From: sewash@bmi.net (Susan L. Mays)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
('mrjeffchlg@aol.com')
I really enjoyed reading this page. It is on my favorite list. I am a 49 yr old US citizen and have voted as long and as often as I have been able. I have never before in my life felt so afraid for the direction this country is taking. The current President has really disillusioned me. Although I did not vote for him I thought from his first few speeches that he may really mean what he said and maybe would do something for the deficit in this country.
Well, he has shown me that I was wrong. He is still for bigger gov't spending even as he speaks from the other side of his mouth about doing something about the deficit. The only way things are going to get better in this country or more fair for ALL citizens is for the "entitlement" programs to be cut and to be cut drastically.
Susan L. Mays, U.S. Citizen
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 96-05-07 15:41:09
EDT
From: dcarlin@cyber-dyne.com (Daniel Carlin)
To:
mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Hi....
I'm a radio talk show host putting together a web site that I hope will do some of the things you folks are trying to do (and I applaud your efforts). I do have a suggestion.....The articles you have written seem to end prematurely. It's as though you just begin making a good argument, when you decide it needs to be abruptly "cut-off". You might try to carry some of your points to their logical conclusions or outcomes....since at some point that's what we will all need to do with arguments on subjects like these.
Good Luck guys!
Dan Carlin, U.S. Citizen
Subj: Re: Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Date: 05/09/96
To:
dcarlin@cyber-dyne.com
Dear Dan,
Thank you for your comments.
Your concern that we insufficiently explore certain topics is probably correct. However, we are careful to avoid driving the dialog in the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge newsletter. (We instead try to ask tough questions to trigger the public dialog. We're hoping to get the People thinking.) Moreover, the Citizenry has so much to discuss. We should probably publish 60 times per year rather than 6.
Please stay in touch.
Jim Long, U.S. Citizen and Publisher
Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 96-05-04 12:57:32 EDT
From:
clark2@voyager.net (clark2)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
Dear Sirs,
I am very much a supporter of the classical liberal theory the great Thomas Jefferson and your editors promote. I would be pleased to be added to your subscription list if possible.
I was the Opinion Editor of the Western Michigan University daily newspaper last year and wrote about many of the subjects you discuss.
Check it out at www.wmich.edu/herald/
Go into back columns and access these dates for some Jeffersonian theory:
April 2, 1996, March 19, 1996, January 24, 1996, January 15, 1996, December 4, 1995, November 14, 1995, October 17, 1995, September 5, 1995.
I appreciate your consideration.
Respectfully,
David Q. Merritt, U.S. Citizen
Subj: news letter
Date: 96-05-02 22:07:11 EDT
From:
ha8m-stu@skyhawk.asahi-net.or.jp (MORITAKA SATO)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
What kind of talk does everyone have. It is not only a criticism or an opinion, I want to talk a realistic story. I hope you are not to do influence politically. I am looking forward to your answer.
Moritaka Sato
Subj: great site
Date: 96-04-29 02:34:11 EDT
From:
cla@dallas.net (Carl Alsabrook)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
What a great site!! Thanks for the work.... Please tell me what I need to do to obtain your newsletter. I am an avid fan of President Jefferson and am intrigued. Also, I have a question maybe you can help me with. I am a police officer in charge of a new storefront. I desperately want to hang a portrait of the president up in our offices. Where can I find a print of a portrait of President Jefferson? No one seems to have any ideas. Thanks for your time and response.
Carl Alsabrook, U.S. Citizen
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 96-04-25 20:45:06 EDT
From:
hbabi@interport.net (Howard Babich)
To: mrjeffchlg@aol.com
It absolutely amazes me that here we are, at the start of a presidential campaign, and so little emphasis is being placed on the state of the economy which, in my opinion, is a mess.
Bill Clinton ran for office four years ago on the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." So what's new Bill? What have YOU done to help the economy except send your Secretary of Labor - the only member of your government that makes any sense and the only member of your government whom you ignore - out on the speaking circuit to calm the legitimate fears of this nation's working men and women?
You said, Mr. Clinton, that the economy needs to move ahead. Yet, you renominate to the Federal Reserve Board the very man - Republican man - who has single-handedly kept the economy moving at a snail's pace. How can jobs be created when the very man who is responsible for this nation's monetary policy feels that 2% to 2.5% growth is desirable? Who but his fat-cat, Wall Street friends are being helped by the Greenspan policy? Wall Street thrives on the misery of the American working man/woman and Alan Greenspan is its chief henchman.
As a life-long Democrat I suddenly find myself trapped. I obviously can not support a man such as Bob Dole who wants to move this country backward. Yet, I can't support the head of my own party who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and is living proof that Lord Acktin's addage of absolute power corrupting absolutely is so true.
We used to criticize the USSR, and other Communist nations, for denying their people freedom of choice. How is the 1996 presidential election any different than a typical Stalinist election? What true choice do the American people have. Until there is a serious alternative to the two existing political parties in this country, we will never have true freedom of choice and a true free election.
Howard Babich, U.S. Citizen
[Please note: All Citizen comments below this point were submitted to Mr. Jefferson's Challenge before April 25, 1996.]
["The Mr. Jefferson's Challenge Quiz on the U.S. Constitution" (Vol. I, No. 2; February 1, 1996)] was a pretty good article. I learned several bits of trivia about the Constitution....
The only area I believe you are wrong about is the President's ability to wage war. That has been challenged before the Supreme Court several times, the last ones I believe during the Vietnam War. I believe the Supreme Court disagreed with you and believe that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military could at least commit troops. Congress could only not fund it.
In response to this, Congress acknowledged the Court's decision and made an end-run around it under...the Emergency War Powers Act which limits the time a President can commit troops under "emergency circumstances" to 90 days without explicit Congressional approval.
Perhaps the "founding fathers" could have done a better job. However, I believe the United States now holds the record for the country with the longest continuous form of government anywhere in the world. So I guess they didn't do too bad.
Michael S. Geller, U.S. Citizen and Attorney
You are certainly correct that a discussion of Congressional and Presidential authority to wage war ought to include the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (commonly called the "War Powers Act"). Nevertheless, we chose not to include a reference to this law in Question 9 of the Constitution Quiz (although we considered it), because the War Powers Act was designed to obscure the Constitution and mislead the American People.
The War Powers Act was enacted in 1973 by Congress (over President Nixon's veto), after America had suffered the disaster of the undeclared Vietnam War. As written, the War Powers Act "requires" the President (in the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War) to submit to Congress a written report within 48 hours of the introduction of U.S. armed forces "into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." Unless Congress then authorizes the operation (or grants a 30-day extension), the President must withdraw all forces within 60 days.
Since passage of the War Powers Act in 1973, two legal challenges have been filed by Members of Congress, but neither was supported by Congress at large. Both cases were dismissed by the U.S. District Court in D.C. as inappropriate for judicial review. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the War Powers Act.
The first "challenge" (Crockett v. Reagan) was filed in 1982 by 29 Members of Congress who opposed President Reagan's policy of military aid to El Salvador, even though Congress had approved the military aid. The Court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the case on technical grounds. The second case (Lowry v. Reagan) was filed in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq War, by 107 Members of the House of Representatives. These Representatives opposed President Reagan's decision to "re-flag" Kuwaiti oil tankers and provide American escort through the Persian Gulf. The Court again declined jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Noting that "hostilities" was not defined in the War Powers Act, the Court concluded that "fixed legal standards were deliberately omitted" from the law, suggesting that Congress designed it as a political document. Although President Reagan asserted publicly that the War Powers Act was unconstitutional, both sides carefully avoided arguments that would trigger a Court ruling on its constitutionality. In its final ruling, the Court stressed "[t]he constitutionality of the War Powers [Act was] not before the Court."
This absence of any genuine Congressional challenge to Presidential military action since Vietnam (e.g., Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia) exposes the War Powers Act as a fraud. No President has ever complied with it, and no Congress has sought to enforce it. Most Washington politicians understand that the U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to prevent a President (or anyone else) from committing American troops to battle without a Congressional Declaration of War. (Uncontrolled Presidential power was perhaps the greatest fear of the Framers of our Constitution.) During the Vietnam War, Members of Congress had recognized their sole Constitutional authority to initiate military action. However, they feared that re-asserting this Constitutional responsibility through an official court challenge would make Congress publicly accountable for Vietnam policy. Nevertheless, the Constitution does not allow Congress to delegate this awesome legal and moral responsibility to anyone, including the President of the United States.
Herein lies the dilemma then faced by Congress: satisfying its legal obligations under the Constitution and assuming responsibility for an unpopular war, or doing nothing and hoping things would work out. Naturally, Congress chose to do nothing. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution may have anticipated such a dilemma; they tried to design a process that prevented this scenario from developing in the first place. Unfortunately, the Framers did not anticipate illegal Presidential action with no Congressional challenge.
In passing the War Powers Act, Congress tried to duck its responsibility of determining when America would go to war, while retaining this responsibility if events turned sour, as they did in Vietnam. However, the changes prescribed under the War Powers Act could only become law as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with ratification by the States. The War Powers Act of 1973 is thus fraudulent -- the President ignores it, the Congress ignores it, and both Branches know it would be struck down as unconstitutional if the Supreme Court were asked to rule on the matter. (In Lowry v. Reagan, the District Court ruled that no "private right of action" exists under the War Powers Act. Therefore, only Congress -- as a whole -- or the President can file a legal challenge under the War Powers Act.)
The purpose of Question 9 in "The Mr. Jefferson's Challenge Constitution Quiz" was to highlight this fraud on the American People. Both the Executive and Legislative Branches are now vested in this fraud: the President has gained new political power to launch military operations, and Congress avoids responsibility for failed or unpopular operations. Although this fraud benefits Congress and the President, does it benefit the American People? I think not, but it certainly warrants public debate regardless.
Jim Long, U.S. Citizen and Publisher
Mr. Jefferson's Challenge
Until Alan Keyes' [Presidential] campaign this year, I never thought about the Government's PRE-EMPTIVE claim on citizens' labor and wealth. A national sales tax is much more fair [than our current system]....
David Schultz, U.S. Citizen
...[W]e have lost our ability to accept responsibility as individuals and as a Nation. Hope is a sickness of our Country. We all hope someone else will fix [our problems] for us. Accept responsibility and take a stand. Get involved!
Frank White, U.S. Citizen
If you were to dream up a best way to insure a high profit return on your investment - wouldn't it be something that could not have any competition and no possibility of losing a continuing revenue source?
The Military Industrial Complex {Eisenhower's phrase} succeeded in accomplishing the above goal by governing employment/unemployment via backing the votes to upset an encumbant federally elected official who doesn't faithfully feed the trough of public funding for defense contracts. {Pork Projects}
Today's budget debate is about not cutting defense contractors by finding anything else to cut, to protect their chances of getting re-elected.
Out of work defense employees always vote for the one that will give them a job.
We can not, as citizens, stop this "Pork for Votes" - too many people have billions of dollars in GUARANTEED PROFITS profits at stake.
Is there a solution? Term Limits don't work in MEXICO - They still rip off the taxpayers. Can it work in the U.S.?
Dick Brennan, U.S. Citizen
Bloomfield Hills, MI
I think that the problem needs debate, since it is affecting pure capitalistic, private enterprise ventures in the global, highly competitive economy.
Why compete - if you can make a secure profit via controlling employment/unemployment and therefore win public contracts. A brand of socialism or corporate welfare which we don't think Mr. Jefferson would condone.
Dick Brennan, U.S. Citizen
Bloomfield Hills, MI
Jim,
Do you know of Clay Jenkinson, PhD.?
He becomes Thomas Jefferson, giving talks and answering question by quoting Jefferson. A very scolarly form of reenactment. You might enjoy corresponding with him.
I cannot seem to find his card but I will do some checking and see if I can get an address for him. It owuld be nice if he were on-line somewhere. I know he would enjoy Mr.J's Challenge.
Gail Lightfoot, U.S. Citizen
If I could receive satisfactory answers to the following questions I might believe that this government is sustainable and further more I could possibly even want it.
1. How were the search warrants obtained for Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
2. Why did John Glenn not return the stolen money he received from Keating
Lonnie Sorensen, U.S. Citizen
Mr. Long,
I ...thought you might be interested in a continuation of "Whats wrong with America".
The Spin Doctors will always tug at the heartstrings and patriotism of the masses by making it appear that any Military Spending cut weakens America by cutting Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines. The Defense Contractors continue to get increases.
Dick Brennan, U.S. Citizen
Bloomfield Hills, MI
I am a staunch fiscal conservative just like you. Yet both Republicans and Democratic liberals who benefit in the profits of socialized Big Oil and Big Defense contractor (often the same groups) spending do not want to see their cash cow slowed down.
The above have learned how to fully control elections by controlling the employment/unemployment in the U.S.. An out of work defense worker will always vote to replace the elected officials with those that will vote for more socialized spending - more pork barrel military contracts.
Elected officials of both parties, therefore, have to figure out how to cut spending everywhere else in order to keep funding the above pork and insure reelection.
They try to keep the masses energetically debating the Republicans versus the Democrats, diverting attention away from their absolute control of government. As you pointed out, the SPIN is always justifying more military pork contracts. Both Parties are to blame.
No practical Solution comes to mind. Would a Third Party that wants to go back to Capitalistic Free Market values of competitive enteprising work?
No longer would this Third Party allow huge Profits without world competition. No longer will employment/unemployment be governed via the use of taxpayers labors as their funding source for military pork contracts.
Please Reply since there are so few of us that have taken the time to search through the SPIN and see whats really going on.
Dick Brennan, U.S. Citizen
Bloomfield Hills, MI
I see you are just getting started. I hope the tenets of this web page hold true. I am one of those with a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the lack of responsibility exhibited by our elected officials. I agree also that it is easier to complain than to provide reasonable solutions. Sometimes though, hearing complaints from others can help us feel as if we are less alone in our thoughts and feelings. I myself am sick of politics as usual. After all the promises, Clinton has just proved again and again to me that he lies with the best of them. Saying one thing and doing another. My proposal for change is to ask that no one vote for proven liars. Pay attention the promises of our elected officials. Hold them to the same principles by which guide our lives. When someone promises change over and over in our personal lives without ever coming through, we eventually write that person off. Their relationship to us diminishes until they become someone we distrust and avoid. I have seen this happen again and again with friends and relatives. Why then do we allow politicians so much slack? They can lie again and again on television and it makes up for their entire political record. This makes no sense to me. Where is accountability? I have family members that I don't want in my house. They are all nice to me in person and always say things I want to hear. I have known many other non-family members who have said nice things and stolen my property. What I have learned from this is that actions speak louder than words. I have learned to beware of anyone who promises an easy path and says what I want to hear. Clinton (The President, not the other president), recently gave a speech in which he attempted to appeal to each individual American. In my opinion, he tried to assure each and everyone of us that the government (not 'Big Government') would provide for our every need and whim. No more would we have to worry. Baloney. Life is a battle for every one us. The only way to ensure that we are taken care of is to put us all in work farms under armed guard. How else is the government ever going to watch out for the safety of each individual? Personal responsibility is the first step on the long road to freedom. Government control replaces personal responsibility and moral systems needed to support it. Instead supplanting it with artificial rules that require continual shoring to maintain their integrity. This produces an endless succession of more rules required to fill in the cracks.
Where is the balance of personal responsibility and an endless sea of laws? It comes from within. Expect more of your elected officials and then ask the same of yourself. They are no more human than us. They do what they feel is acceptable. If we are lying cheats then expect the same from them. If we can demonstrate that we are forthright and honest then they will have nowhere to hide. Teach your children the difference. Provide an example in your daily life. Our politicians and laws reflect on us as a nation. If we all lived responsibly and worked to reflect our ideals in our daily lives then far fewer laws would be needed and even those laws would be more like guidelines than a recipe for punishment.
Where can we start? Where are you now? Where will you be later? At home? At work? At a sporting event?
Until later,
Jack Dingler, U.S. Citizen
I am new to the net and have been stumbling and bumbling for days looking for a forum where I can get on-line and speak in realtime to other concerned citizens. In particular I am lookng for a dialogue amongst Patriots and Militia people. There are so many sites and engines to get lost in I find it overwhelming.
I enjoy your site and Schiffs and Chomskys but can you steer me towards the above?
Much Appreciated!
Kevin Volz, U.S. Citizen
As i write to you from Tuckahoe, I am pleased to introduce you to the First Continental Convention for the Peaceful Revolution.
Scheduled for July 4, 1999, this date allows ample time for soliciting conventioneers from the People of the United States.
The plan for the convention, is to gather 2 to 4 people (delegates) from each state, and have these delegates gather together on the steps of the Virginia State Capitol, and recite the Declaration of Independence together. It is hoped that a large, cross country, contingency of conventioneers will be on hand to lend credence to the cause. Parties will be in order to help set the mood for such an occasion.
After the Declaration, the delegates will convene to address the issue of "What is the best way to return the government to the people?". A followup convention will be planned. We will return to our states, ready to follow thru with the plan derived at this meeting.
I certainly hope you can make it Mr. Jeff. I have you listed as a delegate.
Any help you can give in recruiting conventioneers will be appreciated.
Peace, U.S. Citizen
We encourage you to submit your comments to the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge "The American Citizenry Speaks!" bulletin board. Send us an e-mail now by clicking here. We update this page every few weeks. (If you do not want your comments posted, or you want them posted anonymously, please indicate this in your e-mail message.)
Return to the Mr. Jefferson's Challenge Home Page
LAST UPDATED: July 6, 1996
end