baily (3)

Constitutional Law - It is overrated

The purpose of this article is to encourage the discussion of an alternative perspective regarding the true intent and underlying framework of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting correct and proper interpretative process thereof.  In order to protect all relevant parties the correct perspective that should be utilized when attempting to properly interpret the U.S. Constitution is to consider Constitutional Law as merely a body of knowledge that is a special and unique subset of Contract Law. 

Our position is that the U.S. Constitution is actually a tri-lateral contract between the various branches, departments, agencies and officials of the Federal government, the group of 50 states and various territories, and the totality of all U.S. citizens and legal residents.  All three of these groups of aggregated parties have mutually negotiated, either directly or indirectly through their representatives, the original provisions, together with multiple added or amended provisions, while citizens and resident aliens have simultaneously, temporarily and partially surrendered or subordinated a portion of their individual inalienable and common law rights based solely upon their mutual and collective reliance upon the negotiated protections contractually agreed upon, promised, and therefore guaranteed, by their respective State governments, and subsequently the Federal government. 

Because many of the rights of the citizens and legal residents are inalienable rights, and the rights of the Federal government and the various States are not inalienable, but merely delegated, there must be a hierarchical interpretive process that maintains the superiority of the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents above the delegated rights of the various States and the Federal government.  In addition, because the rights of the citizens were first partially delegated and partially subordinated to the rights of the States, and then subsequently to the Federal government, the rights of the States are, by rule of law, contract, common law, natural law, and common decency, superior to the rights of the Federal government. 

When any parties agree to the existence, or establish the existence, of any right or set of rights in any contractual relationship they must always recognize that an appropriate set of naturally corresponding responsibilities also mandatorily coexists.  If during the life of the contract there ever appears to be an actual or alleged imbalance between these negotiated, common law, and/or inalienable rights, then there exists the possibility that this imbalance presumptively demonstrates that one party to this special and unique contract is presumably in material breach of the contract through a potentially illegal and/or abusive set of actions, and in order for the contract to remain valid there must exist a set of remedies that will allow the aggrieved party, or parties, to be made whole and restored to an appropriate position and experiential level of inalienable rights. 

A set of imbalances can be created by one party in an attempt to impose their will upon the other parties to an agreement.  It appears that, during the last 100 years, that the Federal government has gradually, and is currently at an exponential rate, successfully and unilaterally amending the terms of this special and unique contract and has reduced, modified, and/or stolen significant inalienable rights from citizens and legal residents in their attempt to increasingly gain an imbalanced level of superior rights and powers while reducing the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents and promoting mere privileges to the level of alienable rights to persons who are unconcerned with the rule of law and therefore will, unwittingly, assist the Federal government in their pursuit of additional power. 

All three branches of the Federal government are guilty of this attempted, and significantly successful, power grab of rights without a corresponding set of increased responsibilities, including the failure to insure the protection of the inalienable rights of the citizens and legal residents. 

The Supreme Court has done so by misinterpreting the true intent and underlying framework of the U.S. Constitution and the resulting correct and proper interpretative process.  As a result their opinions have misaligned the natural political order and the original constitutionally created balance of legitimate rights and responsibilities and have therefore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, assisted and enabled the Legislative and Executive Branches in their own attempts to further unilaterally modify the tri-lateral contract by further shifting man created rights to the Federal Executive Branch while unilaterally, illegally and deceitfully modifying and reducing inalienable rights. 

Many citizens of the various states inherently understand that something is not right with the Federal government and the manner that it is operating while others are now beginning to understand exactly what constitutional principles are being violated by the various branches.  In order for the contractually agreed upon U.S. Constitution to continue to be a valid agreement between the parties it must be interpreted in a manner that allows all parties to have the necessary level and types of remedies that correspond to their specific level of rights inherent in this special and unique contract.  Below is listed a summary of certain contract law principles that should be the basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution and protecting the rights of the citizens and legal residents. 

Fiduciary Duty - Because States have partially delegated various rights of their citizens and legal residents to the Federal government they therefore have the fiduciary duty to protect these persons and proactively insure that the Federal government is not allowed to operate in a manner that unilaterally breaches the tri-lateral contract through the usurpation or eliminate of the various inherent rights of their citizens. 

Adhesion Contract  - Whenever a Federal law or regulation can not be interpreted in a manner that protects the inalienable, natural, or common law rights of a citizen or legal resident of the various states or territories in a manner that maintains their rights at a level that is superior to the inferior rights of a Federal or State government then that law or regulation is invalid and void.  Otherwise the U.S. Constitution is invalidated and voidable. 

Material mistake of fact - Whenever the basis of a law or regulation is based upon an alleged fact that is incorrect, or later is proven or becomes untrue, then that adopted law or regulation is void, not merely voidable, and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are without the authority to refrain from holding that said law or regulation is void. 

Fraud in the inducement - Whenever a Federal legislative act or agency promulgated regulation is publically presented, whether verbally or in writing, by an elected or appointed official, in a manner that is untrue or misleading and is subsequently proven to be untrue, then that adopted law or regulation is void, not merely voidable, and the Supreme Court, and all inferior courts, are without the authority to refrain from holding that said law or regulation is void.

Read more…

Unemployment Insurance

It is time for the Republicans to stop reacting to failed Democratic positions on policy and become proactive in all matters.  Take for instance the debate regarding extending the Federal Unemployment Insurance Program.  The Republicans once again are merely reacting to the talking points of the Democrats.  When will they learn to be proactive.  Here is an easy solution that most Americans will understand and may actually bring a small level of respect back to the Republican Party should they have the manhood to even propose a creative and intellectually consistent idea for once this decade. 

1.         Acknowledge in the Bill authorizing the extension of Unemployment Insurance that the program is an insurance program which must be fully funded and is not an entitlement.

 2.         That the program can be fully funded without either increasing the current fiscal year deficit or the total Federal debt by merely reducing the budgets of all Federal Programs by the amount of the waste and abuse found by Mr. Tom Coburn and published in his annual Report. 

 3.         That the amount of unemployment insurance benefit be changed to reflect a decreasing amount of benefit of 25% for each 6 month period of time after the first year of insurance benefits resulting in zero insurance benefit after 3 years of unemployment.

 In addition, the amount of waste and abuse found in Mr. Coburn's report should be added up by department and legislation should be passed that require the suspension of any and all bonuses and raises for all employees in any department whose level of waste and abuse equals 1% or more of their budget.

 This issue is just another situation where the Republican Party has the opportunity to succeed or fail in their intellectual war for the future of this country with the progressives.

Read more…


WHEREAS, Banks and their affiliated companies issuing credit cards have a right to be fairly compensated for their risk,

WHEREAS, Credit card holders have the responsibility to compensate credit card issuers for there risk,

WHEREAS, If the interest rate on a credit card is 20%, then the total amount of interest charged over a 5 year period will equal an individual card’s credit limit,

WHEREAS, If the interest rate on a credit card is 30%, then the total amount of interest charged over a 3.5 year period will equal an individual card’s credit limit,

WHEREAS, The long term health of the national economy is substantially based upon maintaining a high level of consumer spending,

WHEREAS, The Federal Government, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, has embarked on fiscal and monetary policies to protect the financial stability of banks operating in the United States,

WHERAS, The Federal Government, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, has embarked in a program to lend funds to banks for their direct use and the indirect use of their affiliated credit card companies at significantly low interest rates,

WHEREAS, the Federal Government desires to continue to stimulate the national economy,

WHEREEAS, The Supreme Court has ruled in Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp that Credit card companies may charge interest rates that are usurious in one state if the card is issued in a different state, absent any preempting Federal Legislation,

WHEREAS, The Federal Government has not participated in the protection of the rights of credit card holders by limiting interest rates to a level that appropriately compensates credit card issues for their risk,

WHEREAS, The Federal Government desires to protect the rights of all consumers and credit card holders,

WHEREAS, The Federal Government considers that the ability of a credit card holder to pay off there outstanding balance is a mandatory basis for recalculating the risk of the credit card issuer.

The following rules shall immediately be adopted by the Federal Government into the Federal Statutes and will be applicable to all credit cards both (1) currently issued, with or without outstanding balances, and (2) to be issued in the future:

1. On any date the total interest charged over a 5 year period may not exceed the then current credit limit on an individual credit card.
2. Credit Card companies may not charge interest rates at a rate that is more than 10 times the interest rate which they or their bank affiliate or parent is charged upon any funds borrowed from either the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve.
3. A credit card company, in conjunction with the credit card holder, may agree to suspend use of a credit card and keep a low interest rate of 15%, in lieu of raising the interest rate and maintaining the current credit limit.
4. If on any date a credit card holder offers the issuer of a credit card a settlement that equals the recalculated balance, based upon an interest rate of 10% over the immediately preceding 5 years, then the credit card issuer must accept the settlement as payment in full, reduce the associated interest rate to 10.0% for the next 6 months, and reduce the going forward credit limit by not more than 50%. This settlement will be considered as a retroactive reduction of interest rate and will not be considered as a debt reduction or cancellation of debt for any purpose including both Federal and State income tax purposes and Credit Ratings.

Circular Creation of Risk by the Credit Card Companies

When a person elects to not pay off the entire balance of their credit card and elects to make monthly payments they are creating risk in excess of that which was contemplated at the issuance of the credit card. As a result, the Credit Card company has the right to begin raising the credit card interest rate. However, as the interest rate rises the debtor begins experiencing a much higher probability of defaulting upon their debt due to the compounding of the interest cost. This results in the sequential additional increase in the credit card issuer's risk, an additional increase in the interest rate charged, and the subsequent increase in the probability of default by the debtor.

Therefore, the Federal Government should legislate a maximum interest rate charged on unpaid interest at the statutory rate in the state of the taxpayer's residency, which in California is 10%. Current credit card statements show two categories of charges, (1) actual purchases, and (2) cash advances. The Federal government should legislate that there must be three categories of charges, (1) actual purchases, (2) cash advances, and (3) Unpaid interest. All payments should be first to Cash advances, second to purchases and third to interest charged.

Underlying Principles

1. This provision essentially limits credit card interest rates to a maximum rate of 20%.
2. This provision may periodically limit credit card interest rates to a maximum rate of 10%.
3. This provision is the basis to limiting certain credit cards to 15% while limiting the associated risk of the credit card issuer.
4. This provision will limit credit card interest rates to a maximum of 10% for individuals who pay off their recalculated balance in full.

Read more…