Saturday, February 15, 2014

Gerald Celente - Alex Jones Show - February 12, 2014

Alex Jones, Welsh television presenter
Alex Jones, Welsh television presenter (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They've Created Total Mental Illness, Everyone Afraid of Everything. The government keeps coming out with one lie after another- and the public keeps buying in! Take for example, the recent "off microphone" statement by Obama. Have we really been so dumbed down that we are totally shortsighted? Or is it something more than that? Gerald and Alex discuss these topics here.

Our Notes:  Fluoride Shield?  Really?  And you expect us to believe that works?  Alex Jones, the guy who when you trace the money goes all the way back up to Fox News. Fema and Homeland Security?  Really?  Why does Gerald Celente Bother with this guy?  And it's not that we are not speaking up, it's just some of the stuff you guys are spinning is a joke.  Look at that Obama clip again.  I don't have to like the guy to know that what he said and the context he said it in was not an issue to be worried about or create any kind of fuse over.

Trends Forecaster: Proof the Markets are Rigged. At least five top level bankers have "fallen" to their deaths from high-rises in just the last two weeks. Are the worlds Stock Markets, Currency Exchanges and Interest Rates all rigged? Gerald Celente brings the facts from the news to the table.

Our Notes:  Gerald Celente never answers the real question posed nor should he have regarding speculation of the deaths of the Bankers.  Good for him.  Alex Jones.  Made in America?  Is that Canada or Mexico?  Both are considered America.  How about MADE IN THE USA there dude.  Opps, can't do that now can we?  How about printed in America on Chinese manufactured goods?  (That's printed in Mexico on top of Chinese manufactured goods)  Gotta support good old Alex now don't we?  Really?  Nah.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Governor McAuliffe Statement on Bostic v. Rainey Ruling

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement on the federal district court’s decision striking down Virginia’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples:

"I applaud the federal district court's decision to ensure all Virginians are treated equally under the law, no matter what their backgrounds are or whom they love. In order to grow our economy and attract the best businesses, entrepreneurs, and families to Virginia, we must be open and welcoming to all who call our Commonwealth home.  As this case continues through the judicial process, I will enforce the laws currently on the books, but this decision is a significant step forward in achieving greater equality for all of our citizens."

Link to more information on the Judge who made this ruling.  

Our Notes:  If this is what the founding fathers had intended, they would have made provisions for it.  They didn't as they did not accept this concept.  We can not even imagine how this woman can call herself a Christian.  Even our Russian and Chinese friends who read this site are highly offended by this.   This judge should be thrown out of the country.   And what does that say about our Governor?  In all fairness, we having nothing against the gay community.  We just do not consider it a right.  We view it as a special interest with special privileges which is a violation to both the State and Federal Constitutions from what we have reported here on this site.

  Next move?  The promotion and legalization of pedophilia?  It's coming.  Is this the price this woman had to pay for this position?  (What, you don't think this happens?)  The next probable move is the legalization of pot.  But hey, why stop there.  Legalize all of it.  Opium, LSD, Cocaine, Meth, the whole 9 yards.  Start opening casinos.  Legalize prostitution.  Get a bunch of abortion clinics into the state.  One on every corner and make them cheap and funded by the state.  DO WHAT THOU WILT is the order of the "LAW".    Babylon Returns, get used to it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, February 14, 2014

What the FDA Knew (and Hid) About Antibiotics in Animal Feed

English: Logo of the .
English: Logo of the . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been repeatedly (and rightfully) accused of ignoring the elephant in the room when it comes to antibiotic-resistant disease, namely factory farming practices where antibiotics are routinely fed to animals to promote growth.
According to the landmark “Antibiotic Resistance Threat Report” published by the CDC1 in October 2013, two million American adults and children become infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria each year, and at least 23,000 of them die as a direct result of those infections. Even more die from complications.2  
A recent article in Rodale Magazine3 highlights what the FDA knew, and hid, about antibiotics in animal feed, thereby allowing the problem to persist and grow unchecked:
“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has known for more than a dozen years that use of antibiotics in factory farms is harmful to humans, yet the agency has taken no meaningful action to stem their use.
That's the conclusion of a new report4 from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), published after the environmental nonprofit collected data from the agency through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The data came from an internal review on the safety of feed additives belonging to penicillin and tetracycline classes of antibiotics. The review started in 2001 and ended—for unknown reasons—in 2010.
The findings: Twenty-six of the 30 drugs reviewed didn't meet safety guidelines set in 1973, and none of those drugs would meet the safety guidelines of today.” [Emphasis mine]

Why Did FDA Ignore Risk Factors from the Very Beginning?

As reported in the featured article, the FDA is supposed to look at three factors when determining the safety of an antibiotic-based feed additive.
Based on these three factors (below), the NRDC’s report5 concluded that virtually ALL feed additives containing penicillin and tetracycline antibiotics—both of which are used to treat human disease—pose a “high risk” to human health and should not be permitted:
  1. The chances that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are being introduced into the food supply
  2. The likelihood that people would get exposed to those bacteria
  3. The consequences of what happens when people are exposed to those bacteria—would they still be able to get treated with human antibiotics?
Despite the fact that both penicillin and tetracyclines are used in human medicine, about HALF of the total sales for these two antibiotics end up in animal feed. All in all, an estimated 80 percent of total antibiotic sales in the US end up in livestock, so the impact of agricultural antibiotics on human disease is very significant indeed.
Basically, unless you’re eating organically raised meats, every single piece of meat you eat will give you a small dose of antibiotics, and this low-dosing is a major part of the problem, because when the bacteria are not killed by the antibiotic, they become stronger.
The NRDC report also found that as far back as the 1970s, when many of the antibiotics now used in feed were being reviewed for FDA approval, 18 of the 30 antibiotics were already considered “high risk” for human health, but were approved for use in animal feed anyway.
Even more shameful, there’s NO human safety data for 12 of the 30 drugs, because the drug manufacturers never submitted any safety data for them.
It’s a fair question to ask: WHY has the FDA not taken any action to remove these antibiotic-based feed additives from the market? Especially once federal investigators determined that many of them fell short of regulatory standards for protecting human health?

Antibiotic-Resistant Disease Is a Highly Lethal Man-Made Plague

Today, we’re facing an increasingly complex and dire picture, as many bacteria are developing cross-resistance; a situation where bacteria become resistant to multiple drugs, making them virtually impossible to eradicate once they infect you.
For example, some penicillin-resistant bacteria have also developed resistance to cephalosporins6—broad-spectrum antibiotics that are very important for the treatment of human infections.
According to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), just one organism—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, better known as MRSA—kills more Americans each year than the combined total of emphysema, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, and homicide.7
This death toll is really just an estimate, and the real number is likely much higher. The true extent of superbug infections remains unknown because no one is tracking them—at least not in the US.
“Despite all this, the FDA has refused to withdraw approvals for any of the penicillin and tetracycline drugs that their own scientists reviewed and found risky,” Rodale states.
“NRDC filed a lawsuit against the agency in 2011 forcing it to act on a citizen's petition that requested FDA take action to limit the use of antibiotics important to human medicine. A year later, a district court ruled in their favor, but FDA appealed and the lawsuit is currently in limbo.”

FDA’s Action on Agricultural Antibiotics Is Gross Negligence

The FDA issued its pathetic guidance on agricultural antibiotics on December 11, 2013.8 However, the agency only went so far as to ask drug companies tovoluntarily restrict the use of antibiotics that are important in human medicine by excluding growth promotion in animals as a listed use on the drug label.9 This would prevent farmers from legally using antibiotics such as tetracyclines, penicillins,and azithromycin for growth promotion purposes. But  this guidance is not likely to protect your health at all, and was exactly what the drug companies were hoping for.
As previously reported by Scientific American:10
“[T]he success of the FDA’s new program depends on how many companies volunteer to change their labels over the next 90 days in alignment with the FDA cutoff period. (Companies that do change their labels will have three years to phase in the changes.) And then there are myriad questions about how this would be enforced on the farm.”
Another proposed amendment to the FDA’s animal drug regulations (the veterinary feed directive)11 would require farmers to obtain a veterinary prescription before using antibiotics in animal feed for any reason. If this amendment makes it through the comment period intact, it might have a far greater impact. Comments on the proposed rule are being accepted until March 12, 2014. (For instructions on submitting comments, please see the Federal Register page.12)

How You Can Help Stop the Spread of Antibiotic-Resistant Disease

In light of the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant disease, it would behoove you to become savvy to techniques and strategies that will not only reduce your own risk of falling victim, but also help curtail the spread of antibiotic resistance in general. While the problem of antibiotic resistance really needs to be stemmed through public policy on a nationwide level, the more people who get involved on a personal level, the better. Such strategies include:
  1. Using antibiotics only when absolutely necessaryFor example, antibiotics are typically unnecessary for most ear infections, and they do NOT work on viruses. They only work on bacterial infections, and even then, they’re best reserved for more serious infections.

    As an all-around preventive measure, make sure your vitamin D level is optimized year-round, especially during pregnancy, along with vitamin K2. A number of other natural compounds can also help boost your immune system function to help rid you of an infection, including oil of oregano, garlic, Echinacea, and high-quality colloidal silver.

    Manuka honey
     can also be used for topical applications. Clinical trials have found that Manuka honey can effectively eradicate more than 250 clinical strains of bacteria, including some resistant varieties, such as MRSA.
  2. Avoiding antibacterial household products, such as antibacterial soaps, hand sanitizers and wipes, etc., as these too promote antibiotic resistance.
  3. Properly washing your hands with warm water and plain soap, to prevent the spreading of bacteria. Be particularly mindful of washing your hands and kitchen surfaces after handling raw meats, as about half of all meat sold in grocery stores around the US is likely to be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria.
  4. Purchasing organic, antibiotic-free meats and other foods. Reducing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a significant reason for making sure you're only eating grass-fed, organically-raised meats and animal products. Besides growing and raising your own, buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources is your best bet, and I strongly encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. 
The FDA’s stance toward antibiotics in livestock feed is unconscionable in light of the harm it wreaks, and its weakness makes being proactive on a personal level all the more important. Quite simply, the FDA has been, and still is, supporting the profitability of large-scale factory farming at the expense of public health.
Perhaps one of the strongest messages you can send is to change how you spend your food dollars. By opting for antibiotic-free, pasture raised and finished meats, you’re actively supporting farmers who are not contributing to the man-made plague that is antibiotic-resistant disease. Avoiding antibiotics in all its forms as much as possible will further help curb the growing resistance.

The FDA said volutantary guidelines "is the most efficient and effective way to change the use of these products in animal agriculture."
NRDC attorney Avinash Kar stated, "The FDA's failure to act on its own findings about the 30 reviewed antibiotic feed additives is part of a larger pattern of delay and inaction in tackling livestock drug use that goes back four decades," Kar told Reuters.

FDA Deputy Commissioner and ex-Monsanto attorney Michael Taylor will leave quite a legacy behind.   He's not only served Monsanto and the other pesticide producers quite well, he seems to carry the same sentiment over to the antiobiotic crisis.

It would appear that Taylor's concern for human health takes a very distant back seat to industry profits.  Consider this evidence when taking advice from our federal agencies.   Who are they truly working for?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloucester, VA Fiscal, 2013, Year Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

Gloucester, VA, Fy 2013 comprehensive annual financial report from Chuck Thompson

This is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report from Gloucester County, Virginia local government.  All the details you want to know about how the county spends your money.  If we are correct in what we are seeing, we have a county debt as follows:

Long term obligations begins on page 54 PDF Doc 74.

total bonds $40 million
enterprise $22 million
capital leases $16 million
new bonds $18 million

total $96 million
Local Population:  37, 272 approx.
$2,575.66 per man, woman and child now owed for local debts that are above and beyond the local yearly budget and do not include interest payments on that debt.  Welcome to Gloucester.  Please pay before you leave or when entering.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bitcoin 101 - Fun with Brain Wallets (Making and Playing With Them) - Bitcoin Security

The bitcoin logo
The bitcoin logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There's no idea in Bitcoin more science fiction ready than the idea of brain wallets. To actually hold your wealth inside your head (and no where else) is something that can be done only with bitcoins. In this video we set up and play with a number of brain wallets (of course they aren't really brain wallets if we tell everyone the passwords and private keys...but you get the idea). Whether you are a fiction writer or an escaping refugee, this video is for you.

Welcom to WBN's Bitcoin 101 Blackboard Series -- a full beginner to expert course in bitcoin. We hope you enjoy. And remember the official WBN launch is coming up : January 1st, 2014.

Our Notes:  We are working on a much better and safer way to store your private information so that it's extremely hard for anyone to get no matter what.  It has to do with old technology.  Sometimes that is just the best way.  
Enhanced by Zemanta

PBS Gets On Its Knees For Billionaires | Integrity Is Dead

PBS logo seen at the end of its programs from ...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"On December 18th, the Public Broadcasting Service's flagship station WNET issued a press release announcing the launch of a new two-year news series entitled "The Pension Peril." The series, promoting cuts to public employee pensions, is airing on hundreds of PBS outlets all over the nation. It has been presented as objective news on major PBS programs including the PBS News Hour.

However, neither the WNET press release nor the broadcasted segments explicitly disclosed who is financing the series. Pando has exclusively confirmed that "The Pension Peril" is secretly funded by former Enron trader John Arnold, a billionaire political powerbroker who is actively trying to shape the very pension policy that the series claims to be dispassionately covering.

In recent years, Arnold has been using massive contributions to politicians, Super PACs, ballot initiative efforts, think tanks and local front groups to finance a nationwide political campaign aimed at slashing public employees' retirement benefits. His foundation which backs his efforts employs top Republican political operatives, including the former chief of staff to GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey (TX). According to its own promotional materials, the Arnold Foundation is pushing lawmakers in states across the country "to stop promising a (retirement) benefit" to public employees."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 3)

The United States Supreme Court.
The United States Supreme Court. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
By Thomas James Norton

Another form of attack by Congress on the courts of the Constitution was in legislation directing them how to try cases.
In 1910 it passed an act forbidding the issue of an injunction against the operation of a law of a State except in a specified way.
In 1913 it passed a similar law forbidding the restraint by injunction of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission except on conditions laid down.
And in 1932 Congress enacted the Norris-LaGuardia Act for denying injunctive relief to an employer, except under annoying conditions which might deny relief, where a labor question is involved.
Those invasions of the rights of litigants and the liberties of the American will be examined.
Constitutional Convention forbade Congressional dictation to courts
Prefatory to a discussion of the three intrusive acts of Congress mentioned, a quotation should be made from

the record of the Constitutional Convention (Formation of the Union, p. 625) of August 27, 1787, only twenty-three days before the signing, when there was under consideration "the Judicial power":
"The following motion was disagreed to, to wit, to insert 'In all other cases before mentioned the Judicial power shall be exercised in such manner as the Legislature [The Congress] shall direct.'"
So the Constitutional Convention explicitly refused to authorize the Congress to "direct" the judicial power in any respect whatever. How Congress haslawlessly directed it, nevertheless, and how the courts have lawlessly submitted to the forbidden dictation, are to be seen.
The act of 1910 forbade the courts of the United States to grant an interlocutory injunction "restraining the enforcement ... of any statute law of a State," or of any order made thereunder by a board, "upon the ground of the unconstitutionality" of such statute, "unless the application" be "heard and determined by three judges, of whom at least one shall be a justice of the Supreme Court or a Circuit Judge, and the other two may be circuit or district judges, and unless a majority of the said three judges shall concur in granting such application."
States objected to constitutional restraints
Some of the States had felt wounds in their dignity when a citizen who believed a tax law, for example, was intended to effect what President Coolidge later termed "legalized larceny," went into a court of the United States asking a restraining order upon the officers executing the law until there could be a full hearing on evidence. In addition to that, those were field days for the alien minded

who omitted no opportunity to "go after" the Judiciary, which Von Holst rightly called the keystone of the American arch.
Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." That is, he must have a hearing when he asks it before his property is taken by taxation or otherwise. It was the constitutional intent that the legislature should not take property by fiat. And that was imbedded in the Constitution 46 years before the confiscation of private property was begun by Government through the "graduated" income taxes of Communism.
Article III, establishing the Judiciary, "extends" the "judicial power" to all cases arising under the Constitution, under the laws of the United States, under treaties; to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between a State or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Thus, ample provision was made for the States to use the courts of the Nation. But in the foregoing recital the States are ranked as litigants on the level with ambassadors, consuls, and citizens. No thought was entertained that a State as a litigant should be regarded as any higher than a man. Why should the creature, the State, be above the man, who created it?
Preference of State against Man not authorized
Since the Constitution left the State as a litigant on a level with the man, as it clearly did, where did Congress get the power to change that arrangement of the Consti-

tution and put the State above the man? Only the people, by amendment, could make that change. Yet the courts submitted to the lawless dictation. The first judge appealed to under the meddling act should have refused to call two other judges, should have heard the application, granted or denied a restraining order or injunction, and let the losing party make a test of the law in the Supreme Court of the United States, which would then be in a position to sustain the Judiciary "in all its dignity and vigor," as President Cleveland sustained the Executive Department against encroachment by the Senate, and as Hamilton said in The Federalist that each Department would take pride in maintaining its prerogatives against one or both of the others.
Act of Congress interference with procedure
The act forbade that the application for a restraining order or injunction "be heard or determined before at least five days' notice of the hearing has been given to the Governor and to the Attorney General of the State, and such other persons as may be defendants in the suit." But if it should appear that irreparable loss or damage would result unless a temporary restraining order be granted, then one judge should give that relief.
As Article III set up the Supreme Court and then authorized Congress to "ordain and establish" such "inferior courts" as might be necessary, it was within the competence of the Legislative Department, probably, to establish a three-judge court. In 1891, to take from the Supreme Court part of its load, Congress established nine (now eleven) Circuit Courts of Appeals of three judges each. But to establish courts to meet the needs of the people is

quite another thing from trying, or partially trying, cases in them.
"The judicial power of the United States" to try and adjudge cases, the Constitution put in "one Supreme Court and such inferior courts" as might be needed. That forever fixed judicial power until the people determine that it should be withdrawn from the courts and vested in the Congress or elsewhere.
No judicial power possessed by Congress
Congress may prescribe the jurisdiction of a court which it establishes (like the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals), but not thepower. "The judicial power," says section 2 of Article III, "shall extend to all cases in law and equity." This power is poured into the courts by the people through their Constitution. Congress has no judicial power to confer.
Apparently emboldened by the success -- or lack of opposition -- which attended the act of 1910, Congress again dictated to the Judicial Department, in 1913, setting up a three-judge court and laying down with the fullest particularity the steps which the court would be permitted to take in injunction proceedings arising out of orders entered against citizens by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Congress unduly magnified Interstate Commerce Commission
Again, why should the Interstate Commerce Commission, a bureau of Congress, have a court of three judges, when a court of one judge must meet the needs of the American, who created all that there is in and under

government? This question is particularly pertinent in view of the fact that during the 63 years of the Commission no President has ever appointed to it a railroad man of standing in the field of transportation, finance or traffic, or a shipper of prominence, in the world of commerce. The body never has been what the President and the Senate should have made it -- what the commerce of the country and those engaged in it were entitled to have to serve them. Then, why should its decisions be made so nearly immutable by restrictions on judicial procedure withholding from the American his liberty to seek justice?
Why put Interstate Commerce Commission above American?
As a specimen of the work of the Commission which the Congress was so desirous of making nearly immune to attack by aggrieved citizens, the reorganization of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company will be stated.
Owing to the unemployment of 9,935,000 in the United States, there was a great shortage of production, which means that the railroads lacked freight tonnage and passenger travel, which means that many of them could not pay their way. In 1935, the Milwaukee Company filed a petition for reorganization with the Interstate Commerce Commission in pursuance of an act of Congress. Evidence was received in the year named and in 1936 and 1937. While the case was on trial the number of unemployed rose to 10,932,583, as reported by the American Federation of Labor.
The plan of reorganization approved by the Commission

wiped out all the preferred and common stock. On March 15, 1943, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the finding of the Commission.
A year before that, in 1942, the net profits of the Milwaukee after interest and taxes were $12,174,831. In 1943 the net profits were $29,413,623.
Interstate Commerce Commission failed to see point
That shows that the railroad was in fit condition to handle traffic when the United States should be in condition to provide it. The United States needed reorganizing, not the railroads.
Shortly after the investments of the holders of preferred and common stock had been wiped out, the Company paid off a large volume of its old bonds. That is only one of many like cases of railroad reorganization in destruction of investments. The grossness of the injustice caused talk by members of Congress of impeachment.
It was decisions of that sort that Congress did not want the damaged American citizen to attack in court except under annoying difficulty and delay!
In 1932 Congress revamped a line of legislation respecting labor and told the Judicial Department of the Constitution just what it could do and what it could not do about the issuing of injunctions in cases affecting labor.
Norris-LaGuardia Act denial of justice
The minority report of the committee of Congress on the bill said that in practice it would amount to a denial of the rights of the employer. He was virtually outlawed. To be sure, that was the intention -- that is what a powerful

voting group demanded that Congress give it. And Congress responded to the demand, just as it bowed to the same group five years later and passed the National Labor Relations Act, to the appalling hurt of the States whose Congressmen enacted it.[1]
Those three acts of Congress were definitely lawless and against the liberty of the American. The courts were lawless when they submitted to the intimidations, and the organized Bar maintained a masterful inactivity while the undermining of constitutional government was in open progress.
Historic relief by injunction made clear
The "judicial power" which was poured into the courts by the Constitution was that inherent in the courts of England in 1787. It was brought to America by the colonists. What it was is plain.
Blackstone, whose lectures were taught in the College of William and Mary to Virginians who helped write the Constitution, told the youth at the University of Oxford a quarter of a century or more before 1787 just what were the inherent powers of a court of equity with respect to the restraining order, or the temporary injunction, and the permanent injunction:
"But if an injunction be wanted to stay waste, or other injuries of an equally urgent nature, then upon the filing of the bill [called application in the acts of Congress reviewed], and a proper case supported by affidavits, the
1. The Norris-LaGuardia Injunction Bill of 1932 passed the Senate by a vote of 75 to 5. The House passed it by 363 to 13. The employers of the country whose equipment for production and transportation had won the first World War were all but friendless in the Government which had been saved.

court will grant an injunction immediately, to continue until the defendant has put in his answer, and till the court shall make some further order concerning it; and when the answer comes in, whether it shall then be dissolved or continued till the hearing of the case, is determined by the court upon argument, drawn from considering the answer and the affidavit together." -- 4 "Commentaries on the Laws of England," 443.
That language defined the power of a court of equity with respect to the injunction when the Constitution was written. Consequently that is what the Convention put into the Constitution when it provided:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity."
Congress powerless to defeat constitutional injunction
What a court of equity could do then it can do now. That is constitutional. Being constitutional, it can be taken out of the Constitution only by amendment. Congress can no more change or control the judicial power than it could wipe away the Bill of Rights. Indeed, this provision extending the judicial power to cases in equity is one of the many bills of right written in the body of the Constitution.
The court of equity established by the Constitution having had the power, as Blackstone shows, "to grant an injunction immediately," without notice, upon the filing of an application with affidavits proving that, if it be not granted without delay, irreparable damage will be sustained by the applicant, that power cannot be withdrawn or modified by Congress.

Rule of Supreme Court protected all
By Equity Rule 73 of the Supreme Court of the United States, governing the lower courts also, long in effect, meticulous care was taken to prescribe procedure in injunction cases -- not alone in cases affecting the powerful group unconstitutionally favored by the Act of 1932, known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act, but in suits of all Americans.
The Rule directs (1) that no preliminary injunction issue without notice; (2) that no temporary restraining order be granted without notice unless it clearly appear from specific facts presented, under oath, that immediate and irreparable damage will otherwise result, and (3) that the temporary restraining order mentioned be brought to hearing "at the earliest possible time, and in no event later than 10 days."
That rule required notice to interested persons and parties -- to States and to the Interstate Commerce Commission. It required the oath for the temporary restraining order, as described by Blackstone. It required speedy hearing. It gave to defendants complete protection, and the acts of Congress were as needless as they were invalid.
Judiciary in need of protection
On the Judiciary's being the weakest of the three Departments to defend itself, and on the need therefore of its receiving protection, Hamilton wrote in No. 78 of The Federalist:
"The Judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in capacity to

annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The Legislature [Congress] not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may be truly said to have neither force nor will, but only judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the Executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. ... It can never attack with success either of the other two; and all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks."
But government by the educated is in prospect
In June, 1947, the Governor of Missouri signed a bill to require the teaching of the Constitution in all schools from the Seventh Grade up and in colleges and universities, and to forbid a degree of graduation to be given to any student until a rigid examination in the Constitution has been passed.
In the same month the dispatches reported that a similar step had been taken by the Legislature of California.

When the legislatures of all the other States follow those wise examples it will soon be impossible to draw from the population weak Congresses or Courts or Legislatures or Executives.

Special Thanks to Barefoot's world.
Enhanced by Zemanta