My E-Mail Conversation With John

Here are the first few installments of an ongoing email conversation I'm having with a John Birch society member (hereinafter referred to as John Birch). Take a read:
EDIT: This post is Pinter-play style...the newest is first, the oldest is last

Sorro,
The Founding Fathers set gold and silver coin as the money for this nation as they had already suffered through a paper-money inflation, that's where the term "not worth a continental" came from, so the Constitution only allowed the Federal government to "Coin" money, not to print paper, in fact it forbade the creation of such paper money. The Constituiton is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and the creation of a Federal Reserve Banking cartel by congress is not authorized to the Congress by that law. If we don't enforce the Constitution, the compact between the states, then we have no Constitution and the Federation they created has become unlawful, so I'm not being nitpicky.

The same goes for the power to "declare war" which was given only to Congress. Yes, Presidents fought at times without a declaration of war as a response to an act of piracy for example. Presidents can always respond defensively when we've been attacked, but Iraq DID NOT ATTACK US. Plus, we're talking about a limited defensive response, not a full-scale war with a nation. Also, just because some presidents actually have exceded their authority concerning war doesn't excuse future or present presidents in usurping that same authority from Congress nor does it excuse Congress for abdicating their Constitutionally assigned power over war.

John Birch

________________________________________
From: Two Guys from Quantico
Sent: Thu 10/16/2008 6:49 PM
To: John Birch
Subject: RE: Opportunities to help
John,
Sorry I haven’t responded until now, I was out of town on business. You’re right on the Constitution not giving authority to bail out private companies with federal funds, but I think that a situation like this is something the Founding Fathers never anticipated. You could also make the argument that the FDIC, the Fed, and even our national currency (being a fiat currency instead of one based on gold or silver reserves) are unconstitutional. I believe that the Constitution didn’t have much to do with our fiduciary system because it ultimately was something that wasn’t as important as the rest of the Constitution. At any rate Alexander Hamilton proceeded to change things around when he became the first Secretary of the Treasury anyway, creating a department that was the model for every other department in the future.
As far as the declaration of war issue, I feel that Congress’ authorization on the war is indeed in line with the Constitution as clarified by the War Powers Act of 1973. There is still Congressional oversight and it is actually more stringent a set of requirements than is laid forth in the Constitution. Whether the war should have happened or not is a completely different issue, as is whether we should finish mopping up after the war. I think that based on what we know now, the war shouldn’t have happened, nevertheless it did, and I think that our only responsible course of action is to continue to station our troops there until such a time as we can leave Iraq as a stable functioning nation. We have fought other nations without an official “Declaration of War” before, going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s wars with the Barbary States in 1801 and 1815. If two of our founding fathers, including the principle writer of the document, thought that was enough, isn’t that at least enough of an endorsement from a Constitutionality perspective? You could even argue the constitutionality of the Civil War – if the states were supreme, didn’t they have a right to pull out of a union? What made them so subservient to a Federal government that suddenly was far more powerful than the Founders intended?
I absolutely agree with your belief that John McCain doesn’t interpret the Constitution exactly as I would have it interpreted, but few people do. At the same time, I can’t say that a man who endured 5 years of torture in Hoa La prison on behalf of this nation, it’s people, and it’s principles doesn’t revere the Constitution. If he didn’t, he would have sung like a bird to the NVA to allow him to be released. Instead, he stood up for this nation and suffered for it.

Sorro


From: John Birch
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 8:31 PM
To: Two Guys From Quantico
Subject: RE: Opportunities to help

Sorro,
There's no authority in the Constitution to give bailouts to private companies using federal funds, yet McCain favors doing so, thus,he can't actually revere the Constitution. There was no declaration of war on Iraq, so the war is unconstitutional since a Congressional Declaration of war is required before a president executes a war, yet McCain favors the war and continuing this unconstitutional and thus illegal war. He can' revere the Constitution.

Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party Candidate for President does actually revere the Constitution and would bring our troops home from the middle east.

Sorro, actually some times we can't convince other of the truth about politics, but sometimes we can. Fact help people change their wrong opinons.

John

________________________________________
From: Two Guys from Quantico
Sent: Fri 10/10/2008 5:44 PM
To: John Birch
Subject: RE: Opportunities to help
John,
I appreciate your candor. While I certainly agree that Mr. McCain isn’t the perfect candidate, I have a bit of a philosophical difference in that I think that while he certainly may make mistakes and is not my ideal candidate, he’s certainly better than Mr. Obama. The big difference is on the issue of judges. I think that Mr. Obama would get us liberal judges who would make laws for a generation whereas Mr. McCain would give us solid conservative justices like Justice Roberts and Justice Alito who would help protect our constitution. I don’t agree with all of his interpretations of it, but I do know that Mr. McCain has a strong reverence and love for the Constitution and our nation as well. I also prefer his stance in Iraq to Mr. Obama’s because whether we like the war or not, our job is to get out of there with a stable Iraq as opposed to leaving it vulnerable and making things far worse than they have been there or even than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Nevertheless, if there’s one thing I have learned in politics it’s that I can’t convince people that my beliefs are right and vice-versa. We’ll just agree to respectfully disagree.

Once again, thanks for the email and telling me some of your thoughts.

Sorro

From: John Birch
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 3:43 PM
To: Two Guys from Quantico
Subject: RE: Opportunities to help

Thanks Sorro,
But, the Republican party has chosen a candidate I can't support, John McCain. McCain supported the socialistic and unconstitutional bailout of insolvent financial institutions, just like Obama,no difference. McCain is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that has worked for decades to bring about a new world order through the United Nations being empowered. McCain-Fiengold Finance Reform was the act that so injured freedom of speech and freedom of the press. McCain continues to support a war on Iraq that was begun unconstitutionally without a Congressional declaration of war, was fought under false pretenses, was an agression by our nation since Iraq had not attacked us, and was in support of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. I can never support such a man as John McCain who apparently cares nothing for the constitution, but favors the bailout, the war, and Democrat Fienstiens strippping of our essential Rights.

My Republican candidate for president, Congressman Ron Paul, lost the primary election, but, I can't support CFR operative John McCain any more than I would support Obama.

John Birch