Defending the Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & the American Constitution
Tuesday September 16th 2014

Self-Educated Man

lincoln family bible study

Read along with us; share your insights, ask questions, post a link that adds to the discussion

Federalist 58 by James Madison. 1. Under the proposed Constitution whose interests were represented by the U.S. Senate? Is it so today? If not, how might it be remedied & by what means? 2. How did the Constitution provide for updating representation in Congress? 3. Madison credits the U.S Constitution with assigning the greatest power, that of the “purse strings” to the U.S. House. In your opinion, how might the House assert that power to reduce the size & cost of government today? 4. Explain in your own words Madison’s warning against too many men serving in the House. How might his warning be applied today as calls abound for a more direct democracy & for scrapping the electoral college system? 5. Is democracy the form of government our Founders gave us or was it a republican form? Explain the difference.

TML is syndicated by:

Google News (Internet)

Newstex - No. 1 Rated Authoritative Content

Schlafly – Bravo to Real Inventor

mark stadnyk

Inventor Mark Stadnyk’s lawsuit explains that the Framers of the Constitution were clear that it is “Inventors” who should have “the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries.”
Credit: Mark Stadnyk


For more than 200 years, our U.S. rule about patents has been, as required by the U.S. Constitution, that the person who first invents something has a right to patent it. Patent rights attach to the inventor, not to paper-pushers who may rush to a government office and try to file first with papers about the invention. But lobbyists for big corporations have long wanted to change our rules, and the current Congress passed a law that gives the corporations what they want. Congress passed what is called the America Invents Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2011. Patent rights are now based on who files documents first with the Patent and Trademark Office. This new law rewards paper-pushers rather than real inventors.

Imagine Thomas Edison not being able to get a patent in the light bulb because someone else rushed to a government office and filed documents first. The patent clause in the U.S. Constitution was meant to encourage and reward real inventors, not paper-pushers. This constitutional provision was unique when it was put into our Constitution, and it is still unique in the world today. It’s the main reason why the United States is responsible for nearly all the world’s great inventions.

Fortunately, a real inventor has filed suit against this new law, pointing out that it is unconstitutional, and he has top legal talent to back up his claims. The inventor is Mark Stadnyk, and his arguments make perfect sense. His lawsuit explains that the Framers of the Constitution were clear that it is “Inventors” who should have “the exclusive Right to their … Discoveries.” Our Founding Fathers inserted our unique patent clause in the Constitution to protect and encourage invention and innovation, not bureaucratic gamesmanship. Bravo to the real inventor who is standing up against the unconstitutional law passed by Congress.

Phyllis Schlafly

Contributing Editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the Founder and President of Eagle Forum, a national radio show host, and a best-selling author.

Used with the permission of Eagle Forum.

The Moral Liberal recommends: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America)