PLEASE REFRESH PAGE
To view updates

 

 

 

Jefferson's Opinion On A National Bank

Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:

1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.(1)

3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.

4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.

5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.

6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution.

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.

8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.

If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory

But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may he made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

Besides, the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption, therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ?

The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection,

It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.

(1) Though the Constitution controls the laws of Mortmain so far as to permit Congress itself to hold land for certain purposes, yet not so far as to permit them to communicate a similar right to other corporate bodies.-T. J. Back


Source:
Ford, Paul Leicester
The Federalist : A commentary on the Constitution of the United States by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay edited with notes, illustrative documents and a copious index by Paul Leicester Ford.
New York : Henry Holt and Company, 1898.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

Jefferson's Prophesy


The Bankruptcy of America

Thomas Jefferson once said:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)
THEN:
The Makers of the Constitution foresaw the need of a national capital. The city of Washington, the District of Columbia, became the capital in 1800. There the work of the government is centered. Congress is given complete charge and control over it. Its residents have no vote. They, alone, of all the people in the United States, must obey laws, with the making of which, they have had nothing to do. They elect no representative to Congress; neither do they elect any city or district officer.

The money, which you use in all your business affairs, is made according to laws passed by Congress. Congress controls the printing of paper money, as well as, the coining of gold and silver money and the smaller coins of nickel and copper.

United States money, in the form of bills, is usually accepted, as equal to gold, in any civilized country. That is because the government keeps enough gold in the United States treasury, and in the banks, to meet all demands on it, for redeeming the paper money.

Congress alone may have money coined. No state may do so.

It is interesting to read the printing on several different kinds of bills . . . a "green-back" or United States note, a federal reserve note, a gold certificate, and a national bank note, perhaps, given by a bank in your own city.

One of these guarantees that the holder will be given the amount of the bill, in gold coin, upon demand; andin fact, gold can be obtained for any of them.

With the power of Congress, to have money made, goes its power to punish those who make false money. To make any coins or bills or stamps, in imitation of those, of the United States, is counterfeiting. Even if it cost a gang of counterfeiters twenty-five cents to make a coin, to pass for a dime, this would be counterfeiting and severely punishable in the United States courts.

References:
"THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR COUNTRY" By Frank A. Rexford

SUPERVISING CIVICS IN THE SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK by Clara L. Carson, Chairman Of The Civics Department Of Wadleigh High School, City Of New York Copyright 1924, by AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY



NOW:
On December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, placing control of this nation's money into the hands of a private corporation. In 1920, the 66th Congress passed the Independent Treasury Act.

In 1921, the United States abolished the U.S. Treasury.


This allowed all United States money in the private Federal Reserve Banks to be kept separate from Federal Reserve Notes. To wit:


"That, if any moneys or bullion, constituting part of the trust funds or other special funds heretofore required by law to be kept in Treasury offices, shall be deposited with any Federal reserve bank, then such moneys or bullion shall by such bank be kept separate and distinct from the assets, funds, and securities of the Federal Reserve Bank and be held in the joint custody of the Federal Reserve Agent and the Federal Reserve Bank;"

From 1913, until 1933, under the authority of the U.S. Congress, a private corporation held control of this nation's GOLD. The U.S. paid interest on the use of their own gold, with more and more of its gold, ultimately ending in bankruptcy.

Inevitably, the bankers foreclosed.

On March 9, 1933, the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260.

President Roosevelt declared a National Emergency that made it unlawful for any citizen of the United States to own gold. Our bankrupt nation went into receivership and reorganized in favor of it's creditor and new owners, a private corporation of international bankers. (Since 1933, what is called the "United States Government" is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/IMF.)

Without a word of truth to the American people, all our good faith and credit was pledged as the surety for the debt by the same Congress who created the mechanism that allowed it to occur.

Those exercising the offices of the several States, in equal measure, knew such "De Facto Transitions" were unlawful and unauthorized, but sanctioned, implemented, and enforced the complete debauchment and the resulting "governmental, social, industrial economic change" in the "De Jure" States, and in United States of America.

References:
Public Law 94-564 Legislative History, pg. 5936, 594531 U.S.C.A. , 31431 U.S.C.A., 5112C.R.S. , 11-61-101C.R.S. 39-22-103.5

They were and are now under the delusion that they can do, both, directly and indirectly, what they were absolutely prohibited from doing. - Federalist Papers No. 44, Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Peters 903

On June 5, 1933, Congress passed HJR-192. House Joint Resolution 192 was passed to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause in the national constitution. Since then no one in America has been able to lawfully pay a debt. This resolution declared:


". . . Whereas the holding or dealing in gold affect the PUBLIC INTEREST, [STATE-Corporate Interest] and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction: and whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency . . . ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS IN THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS . . . PAYMENT in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the united States measured thereby, IS DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY: . . . AND . . . EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER INCURRED, SHALL BE DISCHARGED upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which, at the time of payment, is legal tender for public and private debts . . ."

"All coins and currencies of the United States (including Federal Reserve Notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore, or hereafter, coined or issued, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, . . . " - House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 ).

Note: "payment of debt" is now against Congressional and "public policy" and henceforth, "Every obligation . . . Shall be discharged."

As a result of HJR-192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" where debt is "LEGAL TENDER" money.

The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt."

HJR-192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.

The Judiciary branch of government has the power to correct this fraud upon the people.

Yet, On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for criminal acts.

The petition for Articles of Impeachment was, thereafter, referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon.

In 1965 Congress passed the "Coinage Act of 1965" completely debasing the Constitutional Coin; (gold & silver, i.e. Dollar), U.S. vs. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560, 13 L. Ed. 257.

At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson stated, in his Press Release that:


"When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supercedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States."

"Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system, since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress, who are here on this historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it."

In 1967, in a brazenly unconstitutional act, Congress repudiated its obligation to redeem silver certificates in silver coin or bullion.

In the book, "Pieces of Eight," Dr. Edwin Vieira writes:


"On June 24, 1968 the United States, finally, abandoned the silver standard applicable since Queen Anne's proclamation of 1704, and embraced a system of fiat bills of credit (e.g. alleged currency) based on irredeemable, legal tender, Federal Reserve Notes and debased, legal tender, clad coinage, never to be declared as lawful money of the United States."
Through misguided trust, our duly elected sworn public officials took our lawful currency and changed it to unconstitutional bills of credit (irredeemable Federal Reserve Notes), which continues to circulate only because of the public's continuing, misplaced confidence in these notes. The word "legal tender" on today's notes are not a magic incantation; they impart NO intrinsic value to money, nor do they entitle the bearer to exchange these notes for lawful specie. They are a throwback to feudal days when the sovereign could, and did, issue a proclamation declaring what was to be used as "money" whenever he wanted to debase the circulating medium.

INSCRIPTIONS ON FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

1913 . . . TO . . . 1934
"Redeemable in Gold on demand at the United States Treasury or in Lawful money, at any Federal Reserve Bank." "Will pay to the bearer on demand one dollar."

1934 . . . TO . . . 1968
"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or any Federal Reserve bank." "Will pay to the bearer on demand one dollar."

1968 . . . TO . . . 1998
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
THERE IS NO PROMISE TO PAY, NOR IS A NOTE A DOLLAR!!

And the New $100 "off center" Franklin bill issued in 1998 and the other "off center" bills issued since are no longer even against a Federal Reserve Bank, the Seal is that of the Federal Reserve System . . .


Welcome to the "System" . . . !!!

US currency (notes, bills of credit) was always to be redeemable in United States specie currency; first issued 76 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which only mandates gold and silver coin as currency in substance, not form.

Early Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable, but over the years, the wording on these notes regarding the promise and obligation has been gradually changed untill 1968. Since that time our "monetized debt" money offers NO OBLIGATION AND THEY PROMISE NOTHING!!!!

Since 1913, there has been more than just a gradual and accelerating erosion of the alleged dollar's purchasing power in our society. For the privilege of using these notes of private corporate debt as our "money", we were absolved from the responsibility of paying our debts at law.

We were placed in the position of having the "benefit" of limited liability for payment of debt under the jurisdiction of Admiralty/Maritime law (the law merchant/commercial jurisdiction, UCC) in all controversies.

For the privilege of using monetized debt, we also lost the rights secured to us by our Organic Constitutions, both National and State.

Under the law, merchant, you have no rights. We are now using as "lawful money", worthless notes of private corporate debt, backed by our own credit that we can't own, and for this "privilege" we are held to compelled performance under the statutes . . .

To make it simple, as long as this nation's lawful currency is notes of private corporate debt, (bills of credit . . . money backed by no substance) it will remain impossible to ever repay a debt, thereby keeping us and our posterity in debt into perpetuity.

Has Thomas Jefferson's prophecy come to pass? Under the contrived bankruptcy we have lost the right to challenge the constitutionally of the statutes.

We have lost our law . . .

We can own nothing . . .

We have become slaves of the corporation on the land we once owned . . .

And . . . our children are waking up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered.


"Fiat justitia ruat coelum . . . " "When the skies begin to fall, Justice removes the blindfold from her eyes and tilts the scales."   READ MORE http://www.barefootsworld.net/prophesy.html


WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING ? We need Protectionism laws!!!!! jt


Bloomberg News

India to Fight U.S. Solar Protectionism Charge as Ties Fray (1)

By Natalie Obiko Pearson February 11, 2014


India will dispute a U.S. complaint at the World Trade Organization that it unlawfully restricts imports of solar equipment, saying American panel makers such as First Solar Inc. (FSLR:US) have access to most of its market.

“We will give a reply,” Tarun Kapoor, joint secretary at the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, said in a phone interview. “Most solar projects in India are allowed to import. We have sufficient quantities open for competition.”

India required about 10 percent of new photovoltaic projects permitted in the past year to use domestically made solar cells and modules. The rule violates international trade law and raises the cost of solar energy, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said yesterday in a statement.

It was the second complaint in a year lodged by the U.S. against what it called India’s “unfair barrier to U.S. exports” of solar components. The action deepens a global solar trade spat spanning three continents that has prompted the European Union to curb imports of Chinese panels, China to impose tariffs on U.S. polysilicon, and U.S. to levy duties on Chinese cells.

The latest dispute also threatens to further strain India-U.S. ties frayed by the arrest of an Indian diplomat on visa-fraud charges involving her babysitter that triggered protests in the South Asian nation. A phone call and e-mail seeking comment from spokesmen at the U.S. Embassy in Delhi didn’t receive a response.

WTO-Compliant

“Our current policy is WTO-compliant,” Commerce Secretary Rajeev Kher told reporters at a press conference in New Delhi. He said India would participate in consultations if the U.S. initiates them.

More than half of India’s 2,180 megawatts of solar capacity was built under programs run by state governments, with no import restrictions. The 950 megawatts built under a central government program faced some local content requirements. Developers including the Mahindra Group, were able to import equipment from Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar thanks to a loophole for thin-film technology. First Solar is the world’s biggest maker of thin-film modules.

As of August, First Solar ranked as India’s top panel supplier with 22 percent of the market, more than triple the share of the next biggest, Canadian Solar Inc., according to Bridge to India Energy Pvt., a New Delhi-based solar consultant. India isn’t a major market for any other U.S. solar cell or module maker, said Tobias Engelmeier, Bridge to India’s founder.

Stable Policy’

“The U.S. complaint only helps one single American company,” said Engelmeier.

First Solar said that restricting imports “slows down overall industry growth due to increased costs,” in an e-mailed response to questions. “India’s long-term interests will be better served by creating a stable policy environment that supports the broader growth of the industry value chain.”

The U.S. may be positioning itself for bigger stakes ahead, said Ashish Sethia, India head for Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

“India has plans to develop some of the biggest solar projects in the world,” including a proposed 4-gigawatt park by a group of state-owned companies, Sethia said. In other countries, solar manufacturers tend to chase scattered orders for smaller, rooftop installations whereas India is focusing on larger, utility-scale projects. “That makes it all the more important for manufacturers to guard their interests in these large but relatively fewer projects,” Sethia said.


February Auction

By the end of this month, India plans to award 750 megawatts of solar capacity in its first national auction since 2011. Half of that capacity will be required to use domestically made cells and modules. This time, there’s no exemption for thin-film imports.

Forcing projects to buy local equipment raises costs and may compromise quality, said Rahul Gupta, director at Rays Power Experts Pvt., a solar plant contractor. The rules will also limit access to U.S. trade finance, which helped lower borrowing costs for projects buying First Solar panels.

“First Solar got a huge market share because the low cost of finance was very important,” Gupta said. In India, clean energy projects without preferential finance face interest rates of about 13 percent.


Anti-Dumping Case

The U.S. filed a similar complaint last February for solar projects awarded in earlier government auctions. India defended its position in a response to the WTO, and the U.S. didn’t pursue the case, Kapoor said.

India is separately investigating claims from its domestic solar manufacturers including Indosolar Ltd. (ISLR) that competitors from the U.S., China, Malaysia, Europe and Japan dumped solar cells, or sold them below cost. Any decision to impose import duties would be made independently of the WTO case, Kapoor said.

Low-cost finance from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to support First Solar sales to India has “skewed the penetration of thin-film in India,” said H.Rahul Gupta, managing director of Indosolar Ltd., in an e-mail.

To contact the reporter on this story: Natalie Obiko Pearson in New Delhi at npearson7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-11/india-to-dispute-u-dot-s-dot-charge-of-solar-protectionism-as-ties-fray




 



Thomas Jefferson
Establishing A Federal Republic
http://loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#skip_menu


 


 

 


 

 


 


© thespiritwithinpoetry