ProvokingThought's Xanga

Case Law on the Dick Act

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:59:26 GMT

Clarification to those who have been informed that I cited a non-existent Act. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that I could make an error and be passed along false information through a source I trust. However, when there is a question about veracity of the actual information (as opposed to a faux charge of plagerism), I believe you the reader should be provided the information and then allowed to judge the source themselves based on the information they provide over a period of time as to determine reliability.

One clue as to whether an ACT exists or ever existed is whether the Court has ever ruled on the matter or cited the law. As a hat tip, the United States Supreme Court and Governors of States tend not to hear cases based on laws that never existed.

Here in xanga-land you have no shortage of self proclaimed experts who want to don themselves the judge and jury Many do not shy away from slander and liable. Of course, when you don't have a pot to piss in, you can get away with it.

Bottom line, believe who you want. It really does not matter to me. I relay information which you can accept or reject. I don't have time for the drama _ _ _ _ _s.

Anyway, for those who believe there was no such Act ever passed, here is the first case citation from the United States Supreme Court:. For the less cognizant among us, when a source is cited and indented it is quoted in full without alteration to preserve the integrity of the source. I will give the sources of the citation , use your own sources to read the entire cases: If you can't figure out the sources by the captioning, that is nobody elses problem but your own.

Perpich v. Dep't of Def., No. 89-542 , SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 27, 1990, Argued , June 11, 1990, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. DISPOSITION: 880 F.2d 11, affirmed. JUDGES: Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court. OPINION BY: STEVENS

Interesting Opinion, especially to see how over time the Courts and Congress pervert laws and the original intent to suit their own needs.

Rendell v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-4740 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, November 6, 2006, Argued , April 18, 2007, Filed

Interesting Pennsylvania Case . Read the decision. Rendell, Specter and Santorum arguing a moot case...three peas in a pod. Read the dissenting opinion on this matter by Circuit Judge Sloviter

For those of you who said you wanted to do further research, I suggest using Lexis One when you have a question about a law. That is where I look up the majority of my citations and where I found these citations.

Have a good day. Time to do battle with an insurance adjuster at 9 am this morning on valuation. I rejected their offer on my truck settlement.

Don't have time for the drama

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:31:17 GMT

One of my regular readers informed me that I have been accused of Plagiarism on the Dick Act post by the only person I have blocked.

Of course, the quoted part is indented, has quotes and is linked. That is normally an indication it is from another source. No, I won't read the post, not the least bit curious. Hope he has fun and gets a bunch of hits. I won't mention the lone blocked person by name either.

Thanks for the hat tip, but in the grand scheme of things you nailed it...it doesn't matter.

Correction: The act was properly titled the Militia Act of 1903

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-04-militia.html

http://www.ng.mil/ngbgomo/history/ngbhistory.aspx

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA423614&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Where Does Your Congressperson Stand On "The Dick Act" ?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:30:54 GMT

No, this is not a nasty joke. My bet is they do not even have a clue. It pays to know legislative history.

This is a great question when you have a legislator in attendance. The next time your Congressman or Senator posits themself as a Constitutionalist, ask them about the Dick Act.

"The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917"
Correction: The act was properly titled the Militia Act of 1903
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/guide/house/chapter-04-militia.html
http://www.ng.mil/ngbgomo/history/ngbhistory.aspx
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA423614&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Massa unloads

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:42:24 GMT

In this radio interview, Massa exposes the democratic leadership for what they are .

Bribery is bribery and this is no isolated case.

Wasting your future earnings

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:26:44 GMT

Have any of you ever had to do mass mailings? For us, it is out of the question. Why? It costs way too much money.

Of course, the United States Census has no such constraint. Yesterday I received a letter from Robert M. Groves, Director of the Census, informing me that in approximately one week from now I will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. What?

Do any of you have an idea what that useless mass mailing just cost us? Not to worry though, it is only your future earnings they are borrowing to waste today. A real investment in your future debt.

Her Insurance Company

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:43:06 GMT

Her insurance company admitted 100% liability last night. Our accounts were nearly identical of the incident. Good to have someone honest run into me.

Thanks for all the kind remarks, well wishes and personal emails. I still have a mild concussion and am sore. Trying to sleep as much as possible. I stayed home this w/e . Thanks again.

Stranded in Ice?

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:35:09 GMT

That's right? Thousands were stranded in ice!

Solution? Call Al Gore!

Here is the article from the UK:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7050525.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=crickler

Truck totaled

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:51:37 GMT

At least, that is my guess.

After leaving Staples today on the way to pick up my daughter, while I was driving up the "aisle", I never saw the Blazer cutting across the parking lot doing about 35 miles an hour. Hit me right in the front and did extensive damage to the Blazer, buckling the front.

I imagine that was the last time trip for the Explorer that left on a flatbed. It served me well. Just had it inspected last week, just finished topping off the fluids and ready to go to Harrisburg tomorrow. JUst renewed the registration . Glad I hadn't filled the tank yet.

Just got home from the hospital-ct scans , x-rays- don't know if I am more mad or hurt. At least the cop flipped out on her for driving that fast in a parking lot.

Me and my explorer...I hate to say goodbye..but I think their insurance company owns it now. Stupid *&^%@ !

James Carville with hair

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:20:59 GMT

This clip actually surprised me. I had seen Dylan Ratigan on Morning Joe last fall when I watched a few segments and he seemed to be reasonable. You can certainly see the transformation. If you close your eyes and just listen to the words this is James Carville speaking.

Again, I get amazed at even the responses given along the way. My first response would have been that there was never a constitutional definition

My guess would be that MSNBC gambled in the moring in a losing time slot already and reasonable fiscal conservatism did not sell with their crowd. In fact, Dylans show was cancelled . Of course, MSNBC denied it was ratings driven. OK, so MSNBC wants us to believe that they do not consider ratings, then what do they consider- ideology? For those of you who failed to pick up on that, the question is rhetorical.

The Party of NO

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:57:50 GMT

One of these nights I will have to break out the video camera and tape "my segment " of the meeting. Without fail, I always manage to get passionate about the topic I am speaking on for the evening. Part of it obviously is from believing in what I am talking about. Part of it stems from the a combination of pure amazement and frustration

The Party of NO

I am a proud member of the party of NO . NO to anything that violates our constitution or bill of rights.. Why do people run from being called the party of NO? The first litmus test any bill must pass is , "Is it constitutional ?" If it is not, the vote is NO.

With the drivel coming out of DC, that may make the majority of your votes NO

John