The Partisan Nature of Rush Holt

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


The record clearly reflects that Rush Holt is fiscally irresponsible. For instance, his Federal Budget Testimony from March, 2009, given during a time of severe economic uncertainty, applauded the fact that the federal budget sought to make the R&D tax credit permanent. This is quite fine, if only his voting record reflected this sentiment more often. On several other occasions, though, when he was in the minority, he, and the most extreme Democrat partisans in Congress, obstructed the efforts to make tax cuts permanent, and extending similar tax credits, which greatly benefited several small businesses in the district when finally enacted into law.


In H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005 – which Mr. Holt was one of the thirty percent who voted against it – there were several tax credits that were enacted into law that helped businesses in the district. Section’s 1331 and 1332, for example, the former allowed “a tax deduction for energy efficient commercial building property placed in service before 2008,” and the latter, “[a]llows certain home contractors a business tax credit for the construction of new energy efficient homes acquired before 2008.” Both benefited small businesses in the district. Our collective interests are not consistently attended to by the current career politician. Obviously this representative chooses his own personal interests, and that of his party, over our general interest. We need to halt the spiraling debt and deficit spending that is currently underway by the extreme Democrat Congress pulling real hard on our purse.

Getting back to Rush Holt’s 2009 budget testimony, he noted that

“[f]rom 2005 through 2007, federal research obligations decreased 7.8 percent in constant dollars. Between Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 alone, total federal research spending dropped by 4.8 percent in constant dollars. The Congress must take some responsibility for this funding situation. In Fiscal year 2008, Congress slightly increased the investment in NSF by 2.5 percent, far short of the 8 to 10 percent increase that was provided in earlier versions of the appropriations bills and less than the 3.8 percent inflation that year. At the same, DoE’s Office of Science received 5.8 percent increase, far less than the 15 to 18 percent increase in earlier versions of these bills. I urge the Budget Committee and the Congress to take a different approach this appropriations cycle.”

Apparently, discretionary spending was actually curtailed by both the Republican and Democratic majority, and Mr. Holt vigorously opposed that fiscal remedy. Certainly, this is an extreme position that does not reflect the general interest of district taxpayers, or even the overall sentiment of Congress as a whole. What is the "different approach" Mr. Holt suggests, even more debt and deficit spending? Is that taking "responsibility for the funding situation?" This is fiscally irresponsible and an unsound partisan sentiment, especially at a time of escalating debt and deficits. It shows a blatant and reckless disregard of fiscal discipline when all of our attention should be focused on eliminating the debt and deficit brought on by decades of wasteful spending. It is clear to me that Mr. Holt will compound the debt issue with increased federal spending, higher taxes, and foreign borrowing, and support all those pet projects for his fellow scientists at Princeton University.

He concluded the 2009 statement by letting us know where his heart really is.

“In these troubled economic times, science is the ideal investment because it provides jobs now while laying the foundation for our future economic growth. As Speaker Pelosi said best, the way to move forward as a nation is ‘through science, science, science, and science.’”

Rush Holt must think that the federal government is the only entity that has ever invested in R&D and created economic growth and jobs.  Surely the federal government can provide an atmosphere to have prosperity, but economic growth, job creation, and innovation is not a primary objective for the federal government, it is the personal responsibility of every citizen. I expect this line of thinking coming from a partisan politician, a plasma scientist by trade, who has used his office and connections to keep a steady stream of taxpayer dollars freely running to his former employer, Princeton University, so they can soak up our wealth to conduct scientific and social experiments in their labs on campus, and in the City of Trenton. One thing is for sure, scientists, and Princeton University, have been taken care of during this recession, and have been very busy using all the federal grants and contracts funded by the taxpayers of this district, state, and nation; as if Princeton University cannot afford to finance their own projects, given the amount of money they charge per credit for a liberal education these days, or even the numerous public and private donations accumulated and invested in hedge funds. What should be our national priority when faced with ballooning deficits and debts? Rush Holt would have you listen to, and follow, Nancy Pelosi, as he often does, and triple spending increases on discretionary research and development.

We need to make the tough decisions required to balance the federal budget, cut spending on non-essential programs, and possibly using that revenue to actually start paying off our national debt. We must not let Rush Holt and Congress recklessly throw our hard earned wages at more unnecessary programs. Now this is clearly in the interest of the whole district, not political favors dished out to a few influential constituents residing in one part of it, at the expense of everyone else. We can no longer be spectators, idly standing by on the sideline while another congressional session wastefully spends our money. We must not be apathetic or disgusted with the process. We are the process. The result is determined by our votes. Vote in November, and, maybe, debt and deficits will be a thing to remember.

Bankruptcy or Solvency?

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


This November, the citizens of the 12th congressional district of New Jersey, and the rest of us in this state and country, have to decide whether to cast a vote for bankruptcy, or solvency. The choice is supposed to be a simple one, yet, due to our peculiar financial circumstances over the past few decades, it has become a stark choice nonetheless. The ultimate verdict will have immediate and long-term repercussions on us, our nation, and posterity. The overall consequences arising from the critical choice before us will be our own doing. We are the active agents of our destiny. All that one has to do is merely look across the Atlantic Ocean at the countries of Europe, and see that most of them are struggling with the troublesome symptoms of a government controlled welfare state that has steadily squeezed the economic vitality from a small and vibrant population.

If European countries, with small and aging populations mind you, cannot financially sustain a government controlled welfare system, then how can it be expected that this country, with its enormously free and diverse population, can sustain a similar system? European socialism is a premonition of what is to come to our shores if we do not make a firm stand against the tide of financial ruin. It is brought on by the careless winds of insolvency, nurtured by reckless spending habits that seek to eradicate every naturally occurring social malady. This utopian storm, now being conjured up by the most radical forces within the Democrat Congress, will produce a devastating tidal surge of higher debt and deficits that will ravage individual freedom and denigrate personal property in its worrisome wake, leaving us all dependent on a highly centralized federal apparatus to take care of our every need and want. This is not the precious fabric of liberty; it is pernicious chains of slavery.


We, in this district, state, and nation, must finally arrest the mounting national debt and continual budget deficits that are being pushed by a crew of career politicians going on a delusional spending spree with our hard earned wages. Quite frankly, much of our personal wealth and property is wasted on unnecessary functions that are not granted to the federal government by any enumerated power proscribed in any section of the U.S. Constitution. Career politicians use fear tactics, and always point to ideal evils whenever there is an attempt to curtail any discretionary spending. Rush Holt is one of these career politicians. He occupies our seat, is supposed to serve at our pleasure, but shows utter contempt by wastefully spending our money, always at the behest of the Democrat Party and Washington D.C. insiders.

Rush Holt, is fiscally irresponsible. He, and his Democrat wire-pullers, who have controlled Congress for four years now, will eventually shackle us to even more specious tax and spending schemes, concocted in the dark of the night, surreptitiously slipped into the middle of enormous bills, with plenty of procedural gimmicks to get them passed, and with no legitimate debate at all to unmask the manufactured maladies they seek to eradicate. We do not deserve ill-conceived partisanship.

During Rush Holt’s decade long occupation of our congressional seat, he fought vigorously to expand the size and role of the federal bureaucracy, which only added to the national debt, and increased the federal deficit, with not too many salutary benefits to point to. As Rush Holt sat in Congress our debt and deficit grew larger, never really making any serious suggestions about curtailing it, but making concerted efforts to increase it.
We need to face the liberal menace that now controls the Democrat Party, and with it, our seat in Congress. Too many political careerists, along with their cadre of salaried federal bureaucrats, are arrogantly pushing their narrow-minded special interests, with slim majorities mind you, over that of the general interest. We are witnessing a time when extreme political ideologies, on both sides of the political spectrum, are polarizing the populace for political expediency, and distracting this nation from accomplishing real political reform and economic renewal.  American citizens are the active participants driving this experiment in self-government.

Four Horsemen of Congressional Power

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


The implied powers of the federal government, derived from those all too malleable clauses in the United States Constitution, have been unusually extended by our ancestors. Even some of our most notable and prominent contemporary public servants, on both sides of the party isle, continue to expand its scope at the expense of vested rights retained by the true proprietors of government. Within the U.S. Constitution there resides Four Horsemen of Congressional Power. Sometimes, they have left the barn with noble patriots riding tall in the saddle, with a firm and steady grip of the reins, striding toward a national purpose and advantage. At other times, though, the Four Horsemen have run aimlessly wild, possessing no legitimate rider, other than a phantom reason, digging its sharpened spurs deep into popular passions, while galloping into the dreamy sunset to eradicate manufactured threats to social tranquility and the public interest.

Congressional authority and power, always led astray by noble pursuits, primarily hinges on the following vagaries embedded in the U.S. Constitution: Necessary and Proper Clause, Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause, and Tax and Spending Clause. Each is inextricably linked by a tenuous thread woven by legislative assemblies and judicial doctrine. Legislative, and also executive, authority must spring from a specific enumerated power or explicit clause mentioned in the constitution. These Four Horsemen have become a mystical quadrant of limitless authority and power. It is a difficult endeavor to proscribe an accurate delineation of constitutional boundaries, especially since the future holds unknown externalities, which may have no precedent in common law, or personal experience, to consult.

Throughout American history, several agents of radical social change - spurned on by the noblest intentions, under the most dire circumstances, particular to its own peculiar existence - have dug deep, and searched far and wide, into the magical chest of federal power, in an attempt to constitutionally legitimize, and publicly justify, all their legislative measures intended to eradicate naturally occurring social maladies, that can possibly never be prevented, or corrected, by any legislative act enacted by the human species.

Those enlightened framers, over two centuries earlier, erected this proven and resilient governing structure, buttressed it with various competing interests and powers, guided by sparse legal phrases, general political conceptions, and republican virtues, to best protect the ancient privileges and fundamental rights they retained as proprietors of government. They also created a framework that gave the federal authority the room to maneuver its activities according to the unforeseen contingencies that life presents us with. It is time to examine these four clauses that gave birth to most congressional power, if we, as proprietors of government, are to determine the best path for American citizens to preserve and extend Liberty for our generation, and posterity.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is the First Horseman of Congressional Power, and gives Congress the discretionary authority to enact legislation that will enable it to attend to the specific enumerated powers expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution. Congress has a responsibility to administer and carry out the national duties entrusted to it by the states and citizens. This clause carries with it implied powers. Congress has the supremacy to enact any legislation that facilitates the administration of its intended duties, and any incidentals that serve that purpose. Congress possesses full discretion to act within the parameters set forth in the constitution. As long as legislative measures intend to address a certain national function or duty attached to a specific enumerated power, then Congress acts in line with the constitution. For example, providing for a navy is a plenary power granted to Congress, but it would not be necessary or proper, during a time of peace, to impound and confiscate boats from citizens to provide for, or maintain, a navy. Only during a time of imminent danger, or some other extraordinary emergency, could Congress contemplate such an extensive and loose construction of the two clauses used in this example. Using a more immediate and realistic example, one could look at the latest legislative measure enacted by Congress to address certain issues regarding health care. It is not necessary and proper, according to this citizen’s constitutional interpretation, to penalize individuals that do not buy health insurance.

The Commerce Clause is another vagary that has been contentiously debated throughout American history. It is the Second Horseman of Congressional Power, and, quite possibly, the most ingeniously tortured clause of them all. It is plainly certain that Congress has complete jurisdiction over foreign commerce, and commerce with Native Americans, but it has also adopted a major role in domestic commerce, particularly in strictly local matters. The Commerce Clause is the perennial source of most congressional power exerted over states and citizens alike. Traditionally, Congress intended to prevent state governments from erecting barriers on the free flow of commerce “among” the states, interstate commerce. Most of Congress’s expansive role has been increased by a liberal construction of this particular clause. The word “among” suggests the commercial activity conducted across state lines was open to congressional jurisdiction. Every financial crisis America faced has brought with it an increased level of federal authority, and, at times, very necessary. Although, Congress has used the commerce clause to protect citizens from state interference, and the corrupting influence of national monopolies and destructive labor combinations, it has also interfered, unjustly, in purely state business, under the guise of some power derived from some clause.

Take the recent monstrosity of health care reform. The provisions pertaining to the mandate that individuals have to purchase insurance policies is a serious reach of federal power. Coercing citizens, through tax penalties, or any other form of fiscal intimidation or extortion, is not a necessary or proper practice in discharging specific enumerated powers. Instead of protecting private contracts, Congress seeks to force individuals into one. It is necessary and proper for Congress to address collusive commercial practices that prevent fair competition in a certain industry, say, insurance companies that combine in order to artificially inflate policy premiums, or doctors, hospitals, and lawyers from taking advantage of insurance companies. In instances such as these Congress, the courts, and the states, have some level of jurisdiction. It is a real stretch of constitutional interpretation, though, to find some implied power under the commerce or necessary and proper clauses that suggest to this citizen that Congress has a right to mandate the purchase of insurance policies.

The General Welfare Clause is the Third Horseman of Congressional Power, and another vague phrase that has assumed a life of its own over several decades, but really has been misconstrued and is virtually bordering on insignificance in legal discourse. It is not a purely academic exercise to expound upon these rather obscure, but powerful, clauses. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution is a sort of mission statement, expressing a summary of national duties the federal government is responsible for. Repeating these sentiments expressed in the preamble, the framers sought to express it again in article one section eight, the most significant section delineating Congress’s enumerated powers, which deal with the national debt, the common defense, and promoting the general welfare of the Union. These specific powers granted to Congress by the constitution, were thought to be national instruments that would attend to the high ideals expressed in the preamble. The federal government was commonly called the “general government” by some of the constitutional framers. It was thought that the federal head was only to attend to the general duties of the national Union. All of the enumerated powers were thought to contribute to the general welfare of the Union and all of its citizens. The general welfare clause should not be interpreted as a grant of a specific power, it is a general statement, and the powers expressly granted to Congress would contribute to the achievement of the mission, “to form a more perfect Union,” not form a perfect Union. Every explicit power - providing for a navy, and coining money - is an instance of providing for the general welfare of the Union and its citizens.

To come up with some legislative proposal that satisfies a contrived general welfare without directly being connected with an enumerated national power is unconstitutional on its face, and can be a dangerous extension of power and authority. Our generation has been handcuffed by some of our most notable ancestors, and current public servants, who bandied about fantastical manifestations of societal maladies, which eventually became the lawful pursuits, and special children, of misguided legislative majorities. It is blatantly unconstitutional to force thirty-two million citizens to purchase health insurance policies. It does not contribute to the general welfare, or the common national interest of all citizens. In fact, the only general welfare provided is to a very small number of citizens, which is an unfair practice that may even benefit some insurance companies and burden many individuals. The health care reform provisions that run contrary to the constitution will inevitably unleash a torrent of legal disputes, legitimately aimed at stripping that well intentioned, but politically misguided, law down to a palatable social instrument. It will surely lead to electoral defeats for the extreme elements that supported such an extensive stretching of constitutional boundaries and conceptions. An extensive construction of enumerated powers has steadily persisted for several decades, and it is time for the excesses to be curtailed by the true proprietors of government, those giving consent to be governed.

There is no coincidence the Fourth Horseman of Congressional Power, the Taxing and Spending Clause, is stabled so close to the General Welfare Clause. The two have basically run along side each other following the lead of the mighty Commerce Clause. Any revenue that Congress raises, under any legislative vehicle, aught to be dispensed on a specific function connected to an enumerated power, not some mystical venture somehow considered necessary for a contrived end born from the general welfare clause. This is the murky realm of discretionary authority and power that should be limited, and only rarely extended. If power and authority is expanded, it should be for a pressing national concern, enacted by a clear majority. The ultimate reason for revenues is to pay the national debts, provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the Union and its citizens. To extrapolate extensive implied and substantive powers from the taxing and spending clause, and the other three horsemen, is a favorite exercise that legislative assemblies and courts of justice are far too familiar with. To attach a monetary penalty to the property of certain individuals to be paid into the federal treasury for not purchasing an insurance policy is not only unnecessary and improper, it does not fall under the commerce clause, or benefit the general welfare of the whole nation, and certainly does not reside in a power to tax or spend.

There is possibly no other clause, perhaps its twin commerce clause, that has produced more constitutional confusion. Direct and indirect taxation is a dispute that rages forward. Congress needed the sixteenth amendment to tax income because it was obviously unconstitutional without one. It is a direct tax on those who have taxable income. To call it an indirect tax because it does not fall on every individual is a disingenuous ploy. Not only did our ancestors create a curious legislative prop given to them by popular demogogues, it has extended its pernicious reach into a myriad of income streams. Individuals, small and big businesses alike, have been saddled with a burdensome tax scheme that has extended to a point of taxpayer distress.

The ancient property rights and liberties we retain as proprietors of government have unnecessarily been curtailed by an expansive, and rather tortured, constitutional interpretation of congressional power. The time has come to re-evaluate the Four Horsemen of Congressional Power, and put them back into a regulated pasture to graze in. They need to be maintained with prudent care, kept in a secure stable, saddled with the rule of law, and the reins held tightly by a jealous electorate, so not to let them run wild in a borderless state of nature. This brief description is intended to distill a complex set of constitutional clauses into a digestible form of inquiry, so the parameters of congressional power and authority can be grasped more easily.

A Democratic Suspicion of Capitalism

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.

Free-market capitalism has had a long and interesting history in America, and political parties have driven the tenuous debate over time. Ever since the compromise to move the capitol of the general government to its present residence in the District of Columbia, in return for the assumption of state debt, there has been a stream of political discourse that persists to this day. A suspicion exists, and will continue to weave its way through our political discourse, that the accumulation of wealth and property by a minority interest will inevitably create a super class that will surreptitiously control the reins of the federal authority to the detriment of the common interest.  There is a presupposition, and a misplaced paranoid notion, at the root of radical Democratic political theory, that private wealth and property, when amassed in great quantities by few individuals or entities, will, automatically, with few exceptions, lead to abusive actions that threaten our republican form of democracy.



Great wealth in the hands of a minority, in fact, is a natural circumstance of human history.  Nowhere in the civilized world, currently, or in the past, is wealth accumulated by a majority of the people, although, several countries try to redistribute wealth to those who do not possess it. It is a great error of reasonable judgment to suggest that legislative assemblies can correct this natural phenomenon.  What legislative assemblies can try to do is limit the abusive tendencies of wealth that actually corrupt the great common interest of American citizens, which does not require a focused attack on those who have wealth and property, just those who criminally acquire it, or fraudulently employ it. America’s republican system is not broken, nor is it run by a group of ravenous wolves. The proprietors of government, those citizens giving their consent to be governed, are not utilizing the system correctly.  Our economic and political troubles result from improper operation, not a faulty structure.



Those who espouse the inequities of free-market capitalism automatically think that morally corrupt individuals get special advantage through the governing apparatus over the common interest, and currently using wealth and property accumulation for that purpose.  This may be the case in some, but certainly not all, and every, instance.  To suggest that every big corporation, wealthy individual, or mysterious entity, are actually controlling our elected public servants, in general, in return for special privileges under the law than any other citizen, is a devious ploy, and a paranoid conception that has been paraded around for two-hundred years by some popular demagogues that seek to confiscate property under the guise of some gross inequity being done to the people.  The American people are not controlled, they control.



The need to provide federal taxpayer liquidity to certain financial institutions, even though some did not really need it, but took it anyway, and those forced to take it, ultimately reassured public confidence in the economy.  An ordered dismantling of large failing institutions is proper, rather than providing taxpayer capital, even though it can be profitable.  Certain people hold the view that there are special advantages given to select corporations.  How can this be when certain national corporations are paying higher corporate taxes than their foreign competitors, medium and small businesses held to higher labor and safety standards, regulated at a greater extent, coupled with private investors paying capital gains taxes and other investment taxes, not to mention all the other various federal, state, and local tax vehicles that operate on wealthy, and not so wealthy, individuals?



A direct tax on income, sanctified by a constitutional amendment, according to the amount of income, which is an arbitrarily defined range, is blatantly unfair, but is the law, and operates in an unjust fashion. That law was the result of a populist revolt, when Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party in general, co-opted the notion of amending the constitution to place a direct tax on income, not apportioned by enumeration. It was an instance of wealth redistribution, liberally extended over the past century to the point of becoming a burdensome blemish of inequity.



The populist uproar of the late 19th century that spilled over into the early 20th century has a line of paranoid thinking that presupposes individuals with wealth and property, corporations like banks and insurance companies, will automatically combine and conspire with our elected public servants to act contrary to the common interest through the control of legislative assemblies. I am not blind to the coziness that exists between corporate business, media, and the governing bureaucracy, but to suggest that the whole system is corrupt, fraudulent, and broken is a dangerous game to be playing with the confidence of the American people. The ballot box, and temperate citizens, can correct or reform our republican system, and extend and preserve our ancient liberties.



The loudest and most radical opponents of corporate America and free-market capitalism have emanated from the Democratic Party. There is an element within the party that still possesses certain political philosophies directly traced to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, which every American citizen should closely study. A deep suspicion of banks and paper currency existed then, as it does currently today. This is not to say that every law emanating from those two administrations were ill judged. It should be noted, though, that a consistent theme runs in the Democratic Party, and with some individuals in general, that capitalism and the accumulation of wealth should be zealously challenged and curtailed by state power. The characters and times have changed, the issues remain, the questions have the same focus, but societal circumstances have dramatically changed for the better. America is more free and greater today, and posterity will try to make it more perfect tomorrow.



It is an extreme error of reason to presuppose that the common interest, that amorphous fourth branch of our federal arrangement, can be easily controlled, or subjected to, a not so secret conspiracy between wealth accumulators and legislative assemblies. As if every corporation having a market cap of $50 billion, or individuals making over $250K, are some how unfairly earning income at the great expense of public welfare, or the so-called laboring class. A radical, but influential, element, residing in the Democratic Party, actually believes mysterious malefactors of public justice are waging a subversive war against Liberty and democracy, all the while sacrificing public justice and the general welfare, just to accumulate more power and influence over us. It is an absurd notion, formed on the paranoid basis of a conspiracy theory that suggests capital interests are always working against the general interest of the working class, who do not directly own the producing process, and do not get their fair share of profit. The result is an attempt to use the government to confiscate property and wealth from most citizens, and redistribute it to the poor and misfortunate few, who are seemingly in that situation because of a capitalist system that is unfair and corrupt. Most American citizens are not wealthy or poor, but they certainly carry a greater burden than they should. They are not fooled by dissimulative practices propagated by a few popular demagogues.

Vote Scott Sipprelle for Congress

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


The Fair Haven Mayor has worked on the local zoning board, recently became mayor, still serving in that capacity, waging battles over cell-phone tower placement, erecting parks, writing letters to editors, lowering taxes, getting the garbage collected, parading around his quaint little town and all he did for it, all the while drumming up weak support on a continual self-promoting tour that has gone on for quite some time already, which has not produced much at all. Do you know what Scott Sipprelle was doing? He was working in the private sector, creating real jobs, and dealing with the complex array of regulatory measures that make it difficult to be successful, especially in New Jersey. That is practical experience needed in a legislator when trying to identify and correct impediments to economic growth.

The Mayor of ye old Fair Haven has assailed Mr. Sipprelle’s character from the beginning. All of you know the story, the one about the evil “hedge fund manager,” and now “venture capitalist,” oh my, very scary, let me go on, or maybe, short, but with a covered option mind you. The Mayor’s intention, or that of his wire-pullers, is to impugn Mr. Sipprelle’s character with the artful device of guilty by association, and capitalize, as a desperate, opportunistic, and perpetual candidate does, on the swirling fears and apprehensions buzzing around our political discourse. It is usually marked by immediate and passionate strokes of boldness, but usually calms during the normal course of time, when reason and logic overcome cynicism and insult. This kind of dissimulative behavior is all too predictable, very stale, and shows this citizen, at least, that the Mayor does not have any real issues, or material differences in policy.

Just look at the website http://supportscott2010.com/ and you will see more good than bad in Sipprelle’s particulars, rather then the general and wispy notions expressed on the Mayor’s website. I recommend Fair Haven’s Mayor to view his opponent’s website, it is full of great ideas and insights, maybe he can remain as a public servant, and put those all too familiar character assassinations to rest, and put some of Sipprelle’s ideas to work in his tidy little town. We do not need anyone that is so quick to avoid debate on the real issues. The Mayor seeks to distract reason to evoke certain emotions, but, that is the fine quality of lawyers who shine when they seek to sway the mind, and mostly the heart, of jurors, in this case the electorate, no matter what side of the law they argue; see, it is really cheap, and too easy to play that old game, it is opportunistic rabble.

We need real ideas and legitimate arguments from our candidates, not general talking points derived from polls asking .0005% of the population. The only poll that matters is the one conducted in the ballot box, and that is even an incomplete assessment of popular will, 60% vote, what a disgrace. Polls are crafted from the semantically arranged question that is intended, or not, to evoke a certain response, or push a specific agenda or viewpoint.

VOTE SCOTT SIPPRELLE FOR CONGRESS; he possesses the private sector experience, independence, integrity, and character needed in a public servant representing us in our national assembly.

A Letter to Thomas Jefferson 1781

WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.


An excerpt from a footnote in my article on George Washington's preparation for peace and war in 1783.

     In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, on September 27, 1781, in Robert A. Rutland, ed. The Papers of George Mason, vol.2 (Chapel Hill 1970), 697-699, George Mason expressed his great displeasure with, and suspicion of, the Confederated Congress’ seemingly ambitious intentions to settle the western territories, especially in Virginia. Revenues Congress would derive from western territories were to be set aside to pay the national debt. Mason identified an issue of congressional jurisdiction. The integrity of state borders insured sovereignty. Mason asked Jefferson if he had “been informed of the factious, illegal, & dangerous schemes now in Contemplation in Congress, for dismembering the Commonwealth of Virginia, & erecting a new State or States to the Westward of the Alleghany Mountains.” It was unconscionable, Mason thought, that Congress even contemplated such an expansive power. Mason’s interpretation of the Articles of Confederation led him to believe Congress did not posses the authority to enact such legislative measures. The power Mason identified was “directly contrary to the Articles of Confederation.” It was a power that had a propensity to become a pernicious doctrine over time. Mason claimed that the power was “assumed upon the Doctrine now industriously propagated ‘that the late Revolution has transferred the Sovereignty formerly possessed by Great Britain, to the United States, that is to the American Congress’ A Doctrine which, if not immediately arrested in it’s progress, will be productive of every Evil; and the Revolution, instead of securing, as was intended, our Rights & Libertys, will only change the Name & place of Residence of our Tyrants.” Mason thought Congress was working under false assumptions. It seems as though Mason identified the problem of implied and explicit powers. At an early stage, Mason was worried about a grand conspiracy moving the Confederated Congress against State sovereignty and liberty. Mason jokingly mentioned that he would “not have troubled” the busy Virginia Delegate to Congress, “but that I apprehended in the late Confusions, & sudden Removals of public, as well as private Papers, the Articles of Confederation may have been sent to some distant Place.” Mason connected the devaluation and curious disappearance of paper currency with depreciable parchment. It was a matter of public trust, confidence, and integrity. It “will prove that Congress” was “arrogating to themselves an unwarrantable & dangerous Power; which is in its Nature subversive of American Liberty; for if they can stride over the Lines of the Confederation, & assume Rights not delegated to them by the Legislatures of the different States, in one instance, they can in every other that the Lust of power may suggest.” The existence of the states as independent sovereign jurisdictions was at stake.

Personal Privacy and the Law 1886

 WARNING: Do not break the law before, during, or after reading anything I mention.   

The following is an excerpt from my article on personal privacy.

     The first time the Supreme Court of the United States elaborated on a concept of personal privacy was in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886). On June 22, 1874, Congress sought to strengthen existing revenue laws. The legal issue in Boyd focused on the fifth section of the 1874 act, which gave rise to a Fourth and Fifth Amendment controversy. Language used in the section required defendants or claimants in revenue cases, on behalf of a written motion by a U.S. Attorney, and by the discretion of the court, to produce private books, invoices, and papers, pertaining to violations of revenue laws. Any items obtained in such a manner would serve as evidence in future criminal proceedings (Boyd, 619-620).The respondent in Boyd allegedly subverted the payment of duties when he fraudulently doctored invoices to obtain thirty-five cases of imported plate glass (617). On February 1, 1886, Joseph P. Bradley, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1870-1892), delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. Bradley expressed the idea that the problems raised in Boyd posed “a very grave question of constitutional law, involving the personal security, and privileges and immunities of the citizen” (618).

     The court in Boyd drew a direct connection between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and amalgamated them into one comprehensive conception of personal privacy. Both Amendments, Bradley asserted, were connected because unreasonable searches and seizures “are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself” (633). The seemingly compulsive nature of the fifth section of the disputed statute was not just in conflict with the Fifth Amendment. Bradley linked the two Amendments close together by merely stating the act of compulsion described in the Fifth Amendment “is equivalent of a search and seizure – and an unreasonable search and seizure – within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment” (635). This judicial interpretation of the Amendments refurbished and invigorated the text, and increased individual liberties for citizens.

     Bradley extensively quoted from English case law to add color to his argument. He drew from legal concepts expressed in the 1765 landmark decision pronounced by Lord Camden in Entrick v. Carrington. Lord Camden’s opinion, Bradley noted for the court, delineated civil liberties that

affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and personal property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence, - it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden’s judgement. Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man’s own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of a crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgement. In this regard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments run almost into each other (630).

Bradley defined a sphere of personal security that was profoundly expansive. He further explained that courts must try to prevent the “unconstitutional practices” of “silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure…by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed” (635). Bradley intimated that the judiciary was an active participant in the defense of personal security. The language of the Fourth Amendment did not receive an extensive review prior to Boyd. Bradley’s liberal construction enhanced the importance and scope of what constituted a reasonable search and seizure, a victory for individual liberty and the rule of law.

     Concurring with the decision in Boyd, Associate Justice Samuel Miller (1862-1890), also joined by Chief Justice Morrison Waite (1874-1888), duly noted “[t]here is in fact no search and no seizure authorized” in section five of the 1874 act (639). Miller agreed with the court’s opinion that “the effect of the act of Congress is to compel the party on whom the order of the court is served to be a witness against himself” (639), but his concurrence sounds more like a dissent. Miller explicitly refuted Bradley’s interpretation of the statute.

Nothing in the nature of a search is here hinted at. Nor is there any seizure, because the party is not required at any time to part with the custody of the papers. They are to be produced in court, and, when produced, the United States attorney is permitted, under the direction of the court, to make examination in presence of the claimant. And may offer in evidence such entries in the books, invoices, or papers as relate to the issue. The act is careful to say that “the owner of said books and papers, his agent or attorney, shall have, subject to the order of the court, the custody of them, except pending their examination in court as aforesaid (640).

Miller saw a real problem with Bradley’s interpretation of the legislation. Justice Miller thought the statute in question did not contain a compulsory order to produce books and papers, which did not abridge constitutional safeguards. Miller was alarmed that Bradley expanded the notion of what constituted a reasonable search:

if the mere service of a notice to produce a paper to be used as evidence, which the party can obey or not as he chooses is a search, then a change has taken place in the meaning of words, which has not come within my reading, and which I think was unknown at the time the Constitution was made. The searches meant by the Constitution were such as led to seizure when the search was successful. But the statute in this case uses language carefully framed to forbid any seizure under it (641).

Bradley, on the other hand, agreed in part that the 1874 act “only requires the defendant or claimant to produce them,” but if the defendant “does not produce them, the allegations which it is affirmed they will prove shall be taken as confessed,” which is “tantamount to compelling their production” (621-622).