Myconstitution.info

Ready for a little brain exercise? Ok, here we go.

We'll start out with me giving you 1,000 $1 bills.  Now you provide 10 envelopes (yes, it's up to YOU to provide them, I just gave you $1000) and divide the money up so no matter what amount I ask you for, between one and a thousand dollars, you will be able to hand me one or more envelopes, and give me the exact amount.

What amount do you put in each envelope?

Before the newly elected or re-elected President of The United States assumes duties as such,  before any congressional representative or senator, or Supreme Court judge assumes responsibilities or duties as such, are they not required to take an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of The United States?

Do they pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (as written and amended) or an interpretation of it by previous judges, administrations or congresses?

Also, Article six of the very same Constitution, establishes the Constitution, the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, to be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, my question is, if every elected or appointed representative or servant must swear by oath or affirmation, to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, why do so many of them seem to look for ways to circumvent it, or blatantly  disregard it? ...and why do "We The People" let them get away with it?

If the Supreme Court observes the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch venturing into unconstitutionality, can they initiate anything to stop it without a case being brought before them? 

Before I started attending the Sentinel Patriot Club Meetings, I probably would have said, "Sure," with my reasoning being that if their job is to interpret the Constitutionality of law, it would be much easier to step in and let Congress know that what they are proposing, if signed into law, would not meet Constitutional muster. They would be acting as an "advisory" at that point.

As I began to scrutinize the Constitution more closely and tried to further learn its meaning, I found that Article 3, Sections 1 & 2 define the powers of the Judicial Branch, or the Supreme Court. I do not read any power granted to the Supreme Court that would allow them to intervene or interfere in either the Executive or Legislative Branches without a CASE being brought before them.

---

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--[between Citizens of different States]--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects].

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

---

I highlighted the words, "Cases" and "Controversies." Also, worth noting (in my opinion) that in the copy of The Constitution that I have here (From The Heritage Foundation) those words are Capitalized. Why are they Capitalized? I think it means that in order for the Supreme court to officiate, there must be a "Case" or "Controversy" brought before them.

So, without knowing what all "such Regulations as the Congress shall make," I would opine that at face value, no, the Supreme Court can not officially initiate anything on their own to intervene if it observes either of the other two branches doing something which would violate the Constitution. Not without a "Case" being brought before them.

Could they, however, offer free, legal "advice" on an unofficial level?

The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is no mention of cannabis anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, and no power associated with it is granted to Congress. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment, any and all power associated with cannabis should be reserved to the states. (Unless, of course, it crosses state lines, at which point it becomes interstate commerce.) Two states, Colorado and Washington, have passed State Laws which legalize the possession and use of cannabis for non-medical use, even though there are still federal laws which prohibit such possession or use. As long as no part of this substance crosses state lines, i.e. if it is grown, cultivated, processed and used within the boundaries of the state, does the federal government have any right to say anything at all?

On August 28, 2013, The United States government announced that they would no longer actively pursue marijuana offenses taken place in those states that have legalized the small consumption and possession of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Agency will only become involved if the offense involve violence or firearms, the proceeds go to gangs and cartels, or when marijuana is distributed to those states where it is illegal.

Now a few points to ponder:

Why does the federal government ignore its own Constitutional powers, (as in national border security -  article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, ...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States... ) and at the same time, sue a State that passes its own State Law to enforce exactly what they (the federal government) should be doing (as in the state of Arizona passing its own border security laws)? 

How does the federal government on one hand, accept State Law over federal law (as in the local use of cannabis) but on the other hand, find "unconstitutional" State Laws or State Constitutions on issues where no federal laws or powers exist (as in same sex marriage or voter ID laws)?

The way I see it, the federal government shouldn't be able to choose, or have it both ways. They should enforce ALL federal laws written under powers granted to them by the Constitution, and leave the states alone to decide for themselves what best suits them within the boundaries of their own states.

Am I wrong?

Carbon dioxide (CO²) is categorized as a "greenhouse" gas in our atmosphere. Some scientists claim that CO² levels in our upper atmosphere are currently higher than ever before, and it is the leading cause of global warming climate change. They also claim that these elevated levels are the direct result of activities of mankind, which include the burning of fossil fuels, power generation, transportation, deforestation, and the cement manufacturing industry. According to Wikipedia, China has passed the United States as the world's leading producer of CO². 

Carbon dioxide is produced by every living, breathing life form on the planet, every time it exhales. Every time we open a beer, a soft drink, or pop a Champaign cork, we are releasing CO² into the atmosphere. We employ many manufacturing processes which use and/or produce CO². There are also many natural producers of CO², directly from Mother Earth herself; Volcanos, forest and wildfires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals.

So, the jury is still out on whether or not man is responsible for elevated levels of CO² in our upper atmosphere. For every scientist who says yes, there is another who says no. I think there is a large political influence in the argument, and the truth is, there is a lot of money to be made in the reduction of "man-made" CO² emissions.

So, then, should we ban all manufacture, use and consumption of carbonated beverages? Whoa! You quit burning your fossil fuels, but don't you dare touch my beer and soda! How many cans of beer and soda are opened every day, globally? Doesn't all that CO² wind up in the atmosphere either directly as fizz, or later as a good belch? Should we ban all CO² fire extinguishers? Should we ban all manufacturing processes that use either CO² gas or dry ice? Should we ban all use of CO²? Should we ban breathing, or should it be taxed in the form of "carbon credits?"

While my last paragraph may seem a little absurd, here is the same "problem" viewed from a different angle. It raises another question to which I have never heard a reasonable answer:

According to molecular weight, carbon Dioxide (CO²) is considerably heavier (44.01) than "air" (28.966). This is an irrefutable scientific fact.  So, if CO² is heavier than air, how does it get up to our upper atmosphere, and what keeps it there?