Vermont In 111: Fill & Download for Free

This one is easy and it’s not even close, as virtually every problem the states, federal government, and, in particular, conservatives have with today’s society stems from it:Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).In this case there was an “evil” farmer named Mr. Filburn. He owned a small farm on which he grew food, primarily wheat, to sell and for his family. He did horrible things with it, like bake bread to eat.Unfortunately for Mr. Filburn, Franklin Roosevelt was President and was hell bent on turning the United States into a Soviet style centralized controlled economy. As part of Roosevelt’s plan to turn the Constitution on its head he managed to get the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 passed by a Congress that was so economically illiterate it boggles the imagination.At the time of the act, the US was a pretty big wheat producer (they still are), but wheat imports had been steadily increasing over the last couple of decades. In order to combat falling wheat prices, the government decided to limit the supply of wheat produced. (In other words, tax everyone in the country so the wheat farmers/lobby could make more money).After Roosevelt got the act passed, Mr. Filburn was told by the government that he was allowed to grow for sale 11.1 acres of wheat at a yield of 20.1 bushels per acre. He was prohibited from growing or selling more than that (in other words, if he had a bumper crop, he’d have to burn it instead of selling it). Mr. Filburn however owned over 25 acres of land. So he planted it all and decided to NOT sell the excess, but to keep it and consume it himself.(It would be like if you owned a lawn mowing company and the government told you that you were only allowed to mow 11 lawns, so you did, but then you ALSO mowed your own lawn.)Well, the government found out and fined the ever living crud out of poor Mr. Filburn. Only he decided to fight it. He won at every level until the Supreme Court. His reasoning? The Federal Government only has power to govern INTERSTATE commerce and between that and the various amendments (particularly 9 and 10) prohibited the government from preventing him from growing wheat, for his own use, on his own land. The interstate commerce clause didn’t give the government the power because growing your own wheat and eating it has nothing to do with interstate commerce.For those of you wondering what the commerce clause says:Congress shall have the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”There fortunately is a LOT of literature on what this meant by the founders. They didn’t want South Carolina and Maine negotiating different treaties with Canada for fishing rights. They didn’t want North Carolina and Vermont to issue tariffs on each other’s maple syrup. They didn’t want six states to ban together and refuse to sell wheat to another. Etc.Up until this case, virtually no one had ever thought the federal government had the power to make such restrictions or prevent anyone in any state from doing any business at all. Every founding document made it clear they did not. But FDR was president. And, in a direct relation to today’s world, issued a threat:“DO NOT protect Mr. Filburn. If you do, I’ll pack the supreme court so they decide everything in my favor (e.g. I become a dictator and burn the constitution to the ground).”The Court blinked and made up a new precedent under the idiotic theory that “Well if Mr. Filburn did not grow extra wheat for himself, he’d have to buy it on the open market. And if THOUSANDS of farmers did that, then the price of wheat would drop. Therefore his actions effect interstate commerce and he is wrong.”This of course completely ignored the argument that the Federal Government had no authority to restrict farmers from growing in the first place, and nothing in the interstate commerce clause was ever meant to restrict individuals ONLY the states commerce, but the court decided it was politically expedient to cave to Roosevelt. (The court basically just ignored the 10th amendment arguments and the argument that the interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply to individuals, only governments).And, with one fell blow, the Republic of These United States died. There is NO WORSE decision the court has ever made. Yes Dred Scott was awful, but they fixed that pretty quickly. This one, when passed, set dollar signs alight in Washington and everyone realized that power was now in Washington and not with the states.And why was this the worst decision ever?Well do you hate government lobbies and the control of government by large corporations? Wickard v. Filburn is to blame, because, for the first time in the history of this country, the government now had the ability to control any business and any production by whispering the magic words “interstate commerce.” The business lobby industry exploded overnight.Do you hate the federal government regulating your business? Wickard v. Filburn is to blame. Prior to then, most regulations were at the local or state levels.Do you hate the federal government banning marijuana and using the criminal drug code to put too many minorities in prison? Wickard v. Filburn is to blame. (interestingly it may be marijuana that gets Wickard re-examined, but I don’t have high hopes).Do you hate that the government gives subsidies and funds certain businesses at the expense of others? Wicckard v. Filburn is to blame.Are you a states right advocate and are angry the ninth and tenth amendments mean nothing now? (They literally mean nothing, they’re completely ignored, which is horribly illegal and unconstitutional, but there’s nothing you can do about it). Wickard v. Filburn is to blame.Are you worried about the implications of a President forcing the court to his will OR the President not doing his job because of threats of court packing? Wickard v. Fillburn is to blame.Do you think Obamacare is unconstitutional? Wickard v. Filburn.Do you worry that a conservative congress might try to use the Federal government to restrict abortion rights? That would occur under Wickard v. Filburn.Our founding fathers were brilliant. They’d studied more about government and government history than probably anyone alive today. They KNEW that removing power from the individual and vesting it with a central federal government would fail. It would lead to the rise of the power of political parties. It would lead to extremism. It leads to the dictatorship of the majority. It leads to higher taxes.If this decision had gone the other way, at least 75% of the current issues we face in this country would not exist. FDR used the constitution for toilet paper and the Court signed off on it.

Economic inequality has emerged as the central political challenge of the 21st Century. Left wing academics and politicians are quick with quack remedies -- higher taxes on the wealthy that will only send more investment abroad and smother growth.http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/12/terrible-truth-about-income-inequality/It looks as if some of the complaints about the financial conditions of the U.S. Are not exactly what we are led to believe. There are states as the map included here that are doing better than others. The correlation of higher taxes and a democratically controlled legislatures are dramatic.State Governor House/Assembly SenateAlabama Rep 66 Reps/39 Dems 23 Reps/11 Dems/1IAlaska Rep 26 Reps/13 Dems/1 vacancy (28) 13 Reps/7 DemsArizona Rep 36 Reps/24 Dems 17 Reps/13 DemsArkansas Dem 51 Reps/48 Dems/1I 21 Reps/14 DemsCalifornia Dem 55 Dems/25 Reps 27 Dems/13 Reps/NOTE: Three Dem Senators suspended.Colorado Dem 37 Dems/28 Reps 18 Dems/17 RepsConnecticut Dem 98 Dems/53 Reps 22 Dems/14 RepsDelaware Dem 27 Dems/14 Reps 13 Dems/8 RepsDistrict of Columbia Dem 11 Dems/NA Reps/2 I NAFlorida Rep 75 Reps/45 Dems 26 Reps/14 DemsGeorgia Rep 119 Reps/60 Dems/1I 38 Reps/18 DemsGuam Rep NA 9 Dems/6 RepsHawaii Dem 44 Dems/7 Reps 24 Dems/1 RepsIdaho Rep 57 Reps/13 Dems 28 Reps/7 DemsIllinois Dem 71 Dems/47 Reps 40 Dems/19 RepsIndiana Rep 69 Reps/31 Dems 37 Reps/13 DemsIowa Rep 53 Reps/47 Dems 26 Dems/24 RepsKansas Rep 92 Reps/33 Dems 32 Reps/8 DemsKentucky Dem 54 Dems/46 Reps 23 Reps/14 Dems/1(I)Louisiana Rep 59 Reps/44 Dems/2I 25 Reps/14 DemsMaine Rep 89 Dems/58 Reps/4I 19 Dems/15 Reps/1IMaryland Dem 98 Dems/43 Reps 35 Dems/12 RepsMassachusetts Dem 131 Dems/29 Reps 35 Dems/4 Reps/1 vacancy (5 Middlesex)Michigan Rep 59 Reps/51 Dems 26 Reps/12 DemsMinnesota Dem 73 Dems/61 Reps 39 Dems/28 RepsMississippi Rep 64 Reps/58 Dems 32 Reps/20 DemsMissouri Dem 108 Reps/52 Dems/3 vacancies (67,120,151) 24 Reps/9 Dems/1 vacancy (22)Montana Dem 63 Reps/37 Dems 27 Reps/23 DemsNebraska Rep Unicameral/Nonpartisan 49 (Non-partisan)Nevada Rep 26 Dems/15 Reps/1 vacancy (17) 11 Dems/10 RepsNew Hampshire Dem 220 Dems/179 Reps/1 vacancy (Rockingham 4) 13 Reps/11 DemsNew Jersey Rep 48 Dems/32 Reps 24 Dems/16 RepsNew Mexico Rep 37 Dems/33 Reps 25 Dems/17 RepsNew York Dem 100 Dems/40 Reps/1I; 9 vacancies (54,59,60, 77,79,98,113,134,143) 29 Reps/27 Dems/5 (IDC); 2 vacancies (8,20)North Carolina Rep 77 Reps/43 Dems 33 Reps/17 DemsNorth Dakota Rep 71 Reps/23 Dems 33 Reps/14 DemsOhio Rep 60 Reps/39 Dems 23 Reps/10 DemsOklahoma Rep 72 Reps/29 Dems 36 Reps/12 DemsOregon Dem 34 Dems/26 Reps 16 Dems/14 RepsPennsylvania Rep 111 Reps/92 Dems 27 Reps/23 DemsPuerto Rico NA 23 (NPP); 28 (PDP) 8 (PNP); 18 (PPD)Rhode Island Dem 69 Dems/6 Reps 32 Dems/5 Reps/1ISouth Carolina Rep 76 Reps/48 Dems 28 Reps/18 DemsSouth Dakota Rep 53 Reps/17 Dems 28 Reps/7 DemsTennessee Rep 71 Reps/27 Dems/1I 26 Reps/7 DemsTexas Rep 95 Reps/55 Dems 19 Reps/12 DemsUnited States Dem 234 Reps/201 Dems 52 Dems/46 Reps/2IUS Virgin Islands Dem NA 10 Dems/NA Reps/3 (I); 2 Ind. Citizens MovementUtah Rep 61 Reps/14 Dems 24 Reps/5 DemsVermont Dem 96 Dems/45 Reps/9I 21 Dems/7 Reps/2IVirginia Dem 68 Reps/32 Dems 20 Dems/20 RepsWashington Dem 54 Dems/44 Reps 26 Dems/23 Reps/2 Dems with GOP majority coalitionWest Virginia Dem 54 Dems/46 Reps 24 Dems/10 RepsWisconsin Rep 60 Reps/39 Dems 18 Reps/15 DemsWyoming Rep 52 Reps/8 Dems 26 Reps/4 Demshttps://www.statescape.com/resources/partysplits/partysplits.aspxIs there a message here that supports less regulation, less federal control of states, and lower taxes.Americans see this at the state level, and hopefully they will consider this when the vote this November.http://mercatus.org/publication/state-fiscal-condition-ranking-50-states

Did the British before the war of Independence see the Colonists of the 13 Colonies as inferior or did they view them as equals but not recognizing them as a separate Nationality and just an extension of their Empire?Short answer: Prejudice was more a class thing than a colonial v Britain resident thing. The upper classes in British society and government “looked down” on most of the population that they ruled. Many professionals, ministers, officers, legislators, and governors in America were wholly colonial in their upbringing and wholly English in their behaviors and lifestyles.In a general sense, a nation state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory usually with ties of similar language and ethnic heritage. Modern theories of nationalism see it as a product of government policies to unify and modernize an already existing state. Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, not an 18th century one. Yet the Dutch republic might be seen as having the characteristics of an early nation, as can Japan, which may have unknowingly been the very first nation-state to have existed, and one of the oldest nations to exist today.Barely a day goes by when some modern politician, media pundit, or even an ordinary American citizen appeals to the “Founding Fathers“, “Founders” and/or the “Framers of the Constitution“. A fully established American identity sprung forth from the soil of North America … so simple, clean, and elegant … and hardly true.Certainly the colonials themselves were unclear concerning this matter — simultaneously considering that the Crown Ministers and Parliament were not affording them all the rights of Englishmen, defending clearly American liberties, and demanding government by the consent of the governed. The arguments over specific regulations and taxes quickly evolved into an all-out battle concerning English constitutional principles. Many Anglo-American were anxious about losing their British-ness, others wanted to quickly loose the Anglo- from their Anglo-Americanism. Remember: Although the colonial society in America was very English, half of the colonials were not English. They were Scots, Scots-Irish, German, Welsh, Dutch, French Huguenot, etc. They were also conscientious dissenters to the established Anglican Church. All dissenters were considered “second class” citizens who could not legally hold public office. Religious affiliation was very important in the 18th century.Clearly in their fight for the rights of Englishmen, the Anglo-colonials arrived at an Americanization, but how prevalent this was before the revolution and how much was a product of it, is in question. There are few outstanding pamphlets or sermons from the period that ask for clearly “American rights” — only for “English rights for America”. Quite a different thing. (see below)Americans objected heatedly to paying direct or internal taxes voted by a Parliament in which they were not specifically represented. Benjamin Franklin, in London as a prominent colonial agent in 1765, testified as follows before a committee of the House of Commons. He made a brilliant showing with his incisive answers, especially since he had “planted” a number of questions in advance among his friends on the committee.Pre-revolutionary genteel Americans blended well into London society, and though known to be colonials, were considered English if they took care to look and sound like Englishmen. Ben Franklin and his son, William (later royal governor of new Jersey) lived there for more than decade, as did Henry Laurens (the second president of Congress under the Articles of Confederation), who educated his children there. With the exception of West Indian sugar growers, white Southerners, like the Laurens, were among the wealthiest of Anglo-American visitors. Some were wealthier than their opposite number on the social scale among the residents of London.Eliza Lucas Pinckney — commonly credited for advancing the production of American indigo as a profit producing commercial crop — and her husband Charles were South Carolinian. Charles Pinckney was a London trained lawyer, an agent for colonial South Carolina, and briefly general legal counsel for the British Admiralty. After a five-year visit in England, Eliza and her husband returned to their home in South Carolina with their nine year old daughter, Harriott leaving their young sons, Charles and Thomas behind in London at the Westminster School to continue their education as Eliza herself had as a young girl. When grown, Harriott met and married Daniel Horry of a prominent South Carolina family in London. Both of Elisa’s sons graduated Oxford. One of them, Charles was a signer of the US Constitution and candidate for President in 1804 and 1808. Her other surviving son, Thomas fought in the Revolution as an officer under Lafayette in Virginia, was governor of South Carolina and minister to Spain, and negotiated the right of the United States to navigate freely on the Mississippi River with Spain in the Pinckney Treaty of 1795.The personal experience of life in London and acceptance in its social scene among the English nouveau riche were crowning achievements for the Southern colonial aristocracy in particular. These were generally of English heritage and Anglican (Episcopalian in America) faith. Many had established lineages back to those cavilers who rode with the King at Naseby (1645).Having returned to the colonies, repatriated American visitors to London went to great expense to bring English styles and motifs to America by building Georgian mansions, formal country gardens, and fashionable townhouses in rank imitation of what they had seen in Britain. A coach with matched team and black footmen in colorful livery was considered a social necessity even within the limited confines of tiny American towns—some with a single unpaved main street. Southern plantation owners planned country mansions that required Italian artisans unavailable in the more remote parts of the colonies. Consequently Italian masons and plasterers were brought in to build and decorate these plantation houses, and small communities of Italian-speaking immigrants settled in the American South. Buildings along lower Broad Street (Broadway) in New York were generally in the old Dutch style with gabled ends, but the new English-style construction of the gentry was mostly of three-storied red brick with shuttered windows and handsome doorways and façades that mirrored those in the better sections of London.The American colonials liked sophisticated imports. Anglo-America had become a consumer marketplace capable of absorbing ever-larger quantities of British manufactured goods. While many of these were necessities, others among them made life warmer, easier, or more comfortable. For the growing middle class many of these items simply made life more enjoyable. The newspapers carried advertisements for Prussian linens, India ginghams, ebony and ivory fans, looking glasses, mahogany picture frames, wallpaper, kidskin and lambskin gloves for men and women, all imported from London.[i] “Suddenly, buyers voiced concerns about color and texture, about fashion and etiquette, and about making the right choices from among an expanding number of possibilities.” [ii] The commonality of desirable imported goods tended to unite the colonials from Maine to Georgia in a consumers marketplace. In many cases their social, religious, and geographical differences were moderated by their common buying experiences. [iii]Reverend John Allen first appears in 1764 as pastor of the Particular Baptist Church in Petticoat Lane, London. He lost this post around 1767 and removed to America. He then published The Spirit of Liberty (1770), pleading the case of John Wilkes, urging that the Member of Parliament be restored to his seat in the House of Commons or that the body be dissolved for abridging “English liberties”. Wilkes was an early promoter of a free press and the transparency of Parliamentary proceedings. Wilkes was imprisoned in 1768 for publishing a satirical poem populated with government officials, which was considered obscene and seditious libel. In defiance Wilkes stood election for alderman of London from jail, and on his release in 1770 he was made sheriff of the city. Wilkes, elected for a second time to Parliament in 1774, was an outspoken supporter of the American colonies during the revolution. [iv]Allen’s thanksgiving sermon delivered on December 3, 1772, An Oration, Upon the Beauties of Liberty, or the Essential Rights of Americans, was printed seven different times in two years in four colonial cities in string pamphlet form, becoming one of the most popular Patriot pamphlets in America (one of the first to use American Rights rather than English ones). The pamphlet in the form of an open letter to the colonial secretary, along with the incendiary rhetoric of numerous colonial newspaper editors, awoke colonial Patriots from a year-long lull of inactivity prior to the Boston Tea Party. Clearly a metamorphosis had taken place in the space of a just a few years.Royall Tyler, a noted jurist and playwright from Vermont, had himself taken part in the Tea Party as a lad. Tyler’s play, The Contrast (1787), was America's first successful stage play and its first comedy to deal with native / national characters. It contrasted supposedly genuine American virtues with artificial “English” behaviors and was written specifically to answer the British play The School for Scandal (1777) by Richard Sheridan. In his play Tyler introduced the character of the honest and patriotic, but unsophisticated and rustic, Jonathan (later Brother Jonathan), who became the stock portraiture of a New England Yankee many decades before his evolution into the iconic Uncle Sam. Tyler has been identified as the real-life model for Jaffrey Pyncheon, a character in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables (1851).[i] Ira Stoll, 513.[ii] T.H. Breen, Marketplace, 105-111.[iii] Carroll Storrs Alden and Allan Westcott, 5-6.[iv] John Allen, “An Oration, Upon the Beauties of Liberty, or the Essential Rights of Americans” (Boston: 1773), as recorded in Political Sermons of the American Foundig Era, 1730-1805, Ellis Sandoz, ed., (Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund, 1998), 315. Also available at Gaspee Virtual Archieve. Accessed July 2011. URL: Oration of John Allen