by Josh Eboch
Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.
Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.
Questions involving but not limited to:
Health Care: If the framers had intended the federal government to establish and manage hospitals and Alms Houses within the states, they would no doubt have given it the explicit authority to do so. To misconstrue the general Welfare Clause in such a way as to conjure that authority out of thin air is to commit a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, regarding those words, “general welfare,” James Madison himself said: “To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
This also includes Medicare and Social Security, both of which are preparing to default on a massive scale thanks to the sort of bureaucratic mismanagement and fiscal shell games at which governments excel.
Of course, nowhere does the Constitution say that states cannot establish and bankrupt their own socialized medicine or retirement schemes. See: Massachusetts and California.
Drugs: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers, and drugs themselves have existed in various forms for thousands of years. They were certainly not unknown to the framers of our national government. Yet, excepting the (repealed) 18th Amendment, there is no mention of drugs or prohibition in the Constitution.
It is thanks to an expansive and unlimited interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the federal government now claims the power to ban certain substances. But in 1787, the Commerce Clause was worded to make trade regular between the states by preventing protectionist tariffs, not to give Congress the power to impose national standards of morality on the marketplace.
In recent years, some states have tried to reassert their authority on this issue, but a senselessly violent war continues to be waged by the federal government against the personal purchasing decisions of people in every state.
Marriage: The positive impact of creating social and financial bonds between consenting adults was likely as obvious in the eighteenth century as it is now. But the framers had a much healthier distrust of the federal government than we do today. They gave it no power to define marriage because the framers did not feel compelled to ask or grant the blessing of the federal government in forming private religious unions.
Neither do we need it today to legitimize private unions, religious or otherwise. But as long as both parties seek to engineer social policy through the federal income tax code, the issue of marriage will needlessly divide our country, and state governments will remain unable to fully implement their citizens’ will.
The list goes on and on, but the point remains the same: America was built on individualism and freedom of choice, and what’s right for one person or one state is not necessarily right for them all.
There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start.
Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice.
Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.
The 19th century Democrats supported the Constitution, even to the extent of defending States Rights, as stated in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon.com and in http://www.claysamerica.com. It states the 20th century Democrats are more the Rousseau-Marx Democrats. How can the latter be allied to the Constitution in any way, or any of America’s founding documents?
That the constitution protects us in many ways from arbitrary power and from foreign (hostile) influences and it provides for free speech and free press is true and correct. What it failed to protect was the press and our educational system, our most vulnerable necessities, from foreign/ hostile influence as well as it protects the highest office from it. In fact if our enemies ever were wise enough to read our own founders statements they would see our “Achilles heel” clearly. I quote Samuel Adams as one obvious source of such a defect in our constitutional protection; “A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy…. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader…. If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.”
Clearly we have issues in both areas today and both are immediately responsible for the general state we are in. Can anyone deny this?
Good question Clay. The answer to your question is they aren’t and have no intention of supporting the constitution. Unfortunately many republicans are also invested in the idea of a global governance which requires we lose our sovereign status. An example is this, the FDA sets guidelines for drug safety. The president, with the advice and consent of congress makes a treaty with the UN of which the WHO is the global policy maker and body that acts on its own agenda. The CDC, our health center which monitors all heath statistics and investigates health issues and reports to congress. The treaty we have with the UN does not have the authority to infringe upon the rights of US citizens directly but surreptitiously has gained an influence over the FDA. The FDA has set a rule to lower standards for safety under threat of pandemic which they look to the WHO to define. The WHO acts in its own interests not ours and this so called pandemic as defined by the WHO is being used to remove our protections from drug manufacturers liability and is also being used to declare a state of emergency thereby removing your right to be secure in your person by allowing our government to sit silent while these do good agencies prepare to inject the people of this nation by hook or by crook. The WHO has no oversight what so ever and does not answer to us under our laws. They openly admit their intent is to be the decider of global vaccinations and make all the deals with these drug manufacturers to supply them with what the want regardless of cost or affordability. This is exactly what our government is doing in every other aspect of “change” required to take the US from a constitutional republic to a member state of an elitist global government which is unrepresentative of the people. Just look at the vaccine mandate issue, WHO- declares pandemic- CDC can not provide data but goes along- the FDA lowers restrictions on drug safety- the government provides manufacturers with immunity from legal liability- local government begin to act based on unproven and uninvestigated claims made by the WHO, in treaty with the FDA and CDC through a backdoor deal to avoid constitutional protections. We are assaulted under threat of retaliation through fines, financial destruction by loss of employment and illegally prevented from seeking reparation by due process by our own justice department. How is this in any fashion legitimate? It isn’t. We the people are under attack by our own government and its allies in the UN. I need not go into the corrupt nature of that organization or the fact it does not support our government at all.
Someone said recently, “we now have representation without taxation”
as at least half the population pays NO income tax…is this not the
reason Athens fell ???
This article is precisely correct. Precisely.
It’s quite clear that the FED GOV is not going to give up anything it has gained from the states, whether by legitimate means or not. This means that, for states to again re-establish their individual and legitimate rights, they need to 1) step out and claim them, like Montana has done with their Firearms Freedom Act; 2) be prepared to defend their individual rights militarily; 3) be prepared to secede and self-govern! A state’s attempt at legal defense of it’s individual and sovereign rights, in any court, is a waste of valuable time and money.
Doug you mentioned Montana, however Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona and now possibly California are starting this process of getting their rights back. Does anyone know anymore states beginning this process?
Interesting, and yet vague in an offhanded sort of way.
Interpretations, irrespective of origin, should be adjudicated with full explanations, and then offered to the people for vote. Following that, ratification by both house and senate.
Interpretations of any type, amendments, and all legislation impacting the whole of the above, offered up as fodder to the people, public discussion, etc., FIRST.
Irrespective, I see all this as solid ideological exchange, yet also lacking the basis required for implementation…
Action! To arms! To arms! The feds are comin is a bit much, so long as we still have time for such actions…?
Because we put out a lot of information, we sometimes do hit the ball.
I offer that each state has unconstitutional laws needing to be addressed. Specifically in the ‘safety’ areas, as these are being used as the back doors to subjugate all our freedoms. Health care/public wellbeing, have laws on the books that are scary.
Putting out this info caused people to look at what was being said, simply because they didn’t believe it could be in America…
I reiterate: check your state public health laws to see how far they go. Sit down while doing so, you may receive a major shock to your system…
Our local paper offered a counter to the vaccine safety today using the CDC as a dropped name. No proofs of any kind and no factual backing, just a don’t worry, it is all well and good in make believe land… A very weak offering at best.
So find someone who is constitutionally aware and oriented and file suit!
Yes it takes some ca$h, but if there is any way go for it!
DO SO NOW! It may not be too late, but close.
Beyond all that, it may still be necessary to organize groups of armed citizens. This could go to the point of revolutionary requirements as it did once before. I hope not but that is growing more and more towards a probabiliy, etc.
In order to get out from under ‘outside control’ factors, much of the so called world influences will have to be stopped. Cutting these ties may well cause some amount of isolationist types of actions.
The ideal of a one world consensus is only the precurser to one world government. The UN was used as an excuse to subjugate the representative government of The U.S. for going into Iraq…!
Outlawing lobbying of all kinds would be a good start in all this, etc.
>It is imperative that the people understand the basis of why these actions and why now…?
Americans are the one and only rebel nation left. The people are also armed. We have been known to go after those who attempt to take us into slavery, rule us, and treat us like serfs under a kings rule…
Oh My LORD!!! Here comes the FLU!!! This is nothing more than a false flag, manufactured in a weapons lab, etc.
At a recent town hall meeting, a Cuban who emmigrated to get away from Castro, stood up.
He stated that they used the health care in order to impliment the present government and solidify its power. I think that says it all.
>As stated: find some kind of way to take direct action!<
The U.S. Constitution is largely dead letter. There are a few provisions of the Bill of Rights that still afford protection against the federal government, but it has totally usurped reserved states’ and peoples’ rights. I really question the ability to ever affect meaningful reform or reduction of federal power short of utter bankruptcy and inability to finance its usurpatious programs and agenda. I now beleive that only by the threat of secession can any hope of reform be accomplished. I think Texans, Oklahomans, and New Mexicans should begin aggessive campaigns for seccession. These three states have much in common and should go out together, or at least threaten to do so. Maybe the outlaw government in Washington will wake up and treat the Constituion like law, instead of a doormat to wipe it polluted feet on. If not, we are better off without the fed gov! Tens of millions of school children being taught an atheists world-view and all the evil and ruined lives that come with it thanks to fed-gov will rise up and thank us!
Referring to “… not to give Congress the power to impose national standards of morality on the marketplace.”
It is impossible for Congress or anyone else to impose standards of morality upon a person or persons.
So, to invoke morality into a discourse about laws is an attempt to make one’s personal, individual preferences into an supposedly legitimate standard upon which the discourse be based. This is done by the protagonist in an attempt to legitimize their personal morals in a way that cannot be proved wrong.
The error in this logic of referring to morals as the standard is that rules and regulations can only effect behavior, not morals or beliefs. For example, let’s say Joe’s personal morals hold that it is OK to kill someone for Joe’s entertainment, or to sell drugs to minors for Joe’s profit. While there are laws that would put Joe in prison for these behaviors, Joe going to prison likely will have no effect whatsoever on his morals, and he would do it again if given a chance.
Therefore, it is not possible for Congress to impose morals onto anyone, only behavioral boundaries. Theoretically, boundaries that work for the benefit and good of the masses they serve.
Since it is proven that collective judgement is better than individual judgement, the collective decisions made by the masses and enforced by the government are the legitimate standards, and worthy of enforcement.
Glenn,
First of all, I reject your red herring of “if drugs are ok, then why not murder?”
You are attempting to draw a moral equivalency between murder and drug use that simply does not exist. Only one involves the use of force against another person. The other is a personal choice made by one individual that others (Congress/you) have deemed “wrong” simply because it conflicts with their own morals or sense of collective decency.
By outlawing personal behaviors that do not involve the use of force, Congress has abandoned objective standards of legality for subjective questions of morality, and impaired freedom in the process.
Which brings me to your even more outrageous assertion that it has been somehow “proven” that collective judgment is better than individual judgment. Who exactly proved this? Was it Stalin? Or Maybe Mao? Or perhaps Hitler?
Those were all men who governed for the good of the collective and whose collectivism killed tens of millions of their own people.
OK, an interesting piece by Mr. Eboch and GREAT comments…so far. But before I go off the handle I wait for Mr. Boldin to comment.
Unfortunately many republicans are also invested in the idea of a global governance which requires we lose our sovereign status…
Excellent set of comments Eric NY in your posts…What I have extracted here from them is the BIG UNKNOWN UNSEEN REALITY.within the ranks of many Republicans…These individuals need to begin to distinguish between the so called neocons Republicans who for the most part champion in act but not in word the excerpt I have copied above. Until the reality of which you speak in this sentence is understood by them…they will also continue to think they are supporting the traditional basis of our Constitution and our so called traditional governance values and acts…
Do you have any ideas how we can move this thought beyond here to the regular rank and file Republican who may hold such a misguided view.?
I am a Jeffersonian Democrat…I speak not of the Democrats because the tradition of which I uphold has passed there beyond …even with some soo called Blue Dogs…beyond any semblance of recognition or I am sorryto say
recovery within my lifetime at least!
Gee Whizzz, fellas…
Bein a radical conservative must allow me ta shoot at both o them outsides, be they left, right, or too stupid to DUCK!!! hehehehe Watch the ones inna middle, they’ll run ya over too…
Laws, rules, and the few minutes response time must mean one is allowed to call time out?
This is nothing more or less than a well organized plan of ‘having a war without declaring one’, in case ya missed Nam.
G.W had a UN Mandate which overrode constitutional protections…?
The ‘inconvenient sovereignty’ is THE issue, who and what are details.
The ideal of ‘adjusting’ is very different than ‘amending’, as is a full and complete definition, etc.
Only when the spirit of and literal meaning are coherently defined and agreed upon, will these matters be settled. And you think health care is a mother…?
Certain ‘national’ controls are needed as guidelines, but also must include the several states, rights, etc.
So all these words, and all are just ideas blowin in the wind.
Having helped to author legislation internationally, I do believe it is time to start doing so here in the good old USA…
I’m hearin lotsa things, anyone here wanna put some meat on them bones you pickin at? Where’s tha beef?
Last, but not least…
Our democratic Republic is in the position of, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, BUT what you can do for your country’.
Stradling a fence is hard on ones crotch…And you can’t have it both ways, either.
Sexual orientation is a private matter, like it or not. And yes I got some o them kinda friends too…
Then there are DRUGS!!!
I got prescriptions that are some really good stuff, straight from the VA.
Drugs weren’t a real problem until our lovin gov decided to manufacture a ‘problem to be fixed’, like a lot of other things…
Everybody has their own ideas of what should be done.
My radical side sez ‘if you ain’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem’.
As in legal action, writing/authoring legislation, and realy becoming a productive part of the whole thing.
This is cool to voice it all and I’m thankful we have this place and opportunity of/for expression.
It is my hope to inspire the rebel to the extent of action, proactive type.
The work is great, the laborers few…
I’ll throw my hat in the ring IF those few with access to audience are willing to give it all our best shot.
Callin lawyers, business professionals, and writers: Hear ye, Hear ye…
It is time for all good men to come to the aid of their countrymen.
It is almost past the point of no return, so I suggest we act quickly.
Hi Josh,
Regarding: “First of all, I reject your red herring of ‘if drugs are ok, then why not murder?’ You are attempting to draw a moral equivalency between murder and drug use that simply does not exist.”:
I believe I did not communicate well, I’ll try again.
My purpose was to make the points that:
1) individual morality is relative, that every human has different morals one from the other, to a greater or lesser extent. In the example, one person’s individual morals might say murder is acceptable, while another person’s morals could hold that murder is not acceptable. In each person’s mind their personal morals are “correct” almost by definition;
2) creating laws cannot change a person’s morals. All that laws can do is provide a means to potentially modify behavior; either voluntarily or by force. The murderer can rot in jail, all the while remaining convinced of the validity of his moral value that murder is acceptable; however with laws in place, his behavior can be modified by incarcerating him, to hopefully murder no more.
Regarding: “Which brings me to your even more outrageous assertion that it has been somehow “proven†that collective judgment is better than individual judgment. Who exactly proved this? Was it Stalin? Or Maybe Mao? Or perhaps Hitler?â€
Again, I failed to communicate well.
There have been studies done of decision making which prove that collaborative judgments and decisions are better than those made by individuals. One study involved ten actual US Astronauts. They were each given the same list of items they could take with them on a trek across unknown territory to return to base camp. They could only take 5 out of the 15 items available. First they worked separately and chose their 5 items and did not reveal what their choices were. Then they worked as a group to collectively decide with of the 5 items would be best to take. The results of the two methods were very different and the collective choices were deemed by the group as superior to any one of the list picked by an individual. Some other examples are that the US government is run by three separate branches; and successful companies have boards of directors made up of multiple people with diverse backgrounds;
Empirically, unless you Josh, have absolutely never asked for or received input or feedback about any decision you have ever made in your life, then your own personal experience and behavior proves the point as well; that collective decision making produces the best results.
Being a supreme dictatorial leader does not constitute a good collaboration for effective decision making as proven by your friends Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. In fact, they prove the point from the other direction.
The collaboration of the allies, a much bigger collective that those run by Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined, was able to make the better decision that the three goons were out of line and needed to be stopped.
All of this supports the bigger point that the collective morals of the mass of population will always be better that those of an individual or of a relatively small group of people. That is why society believes in making laws, they know that individuals make poor decisions that can hurt or damage the masses.
Do you fine people ever do anything other than talk?? You all sound like professional politicians like Lindsay Graham. Pontificating and blathering and such. Why don’t you do something? Why don’t you “votethebastardsoutNOW”? Keep what you have in office and you keep the government you have. Same old CRAPPO! Vote for real change. Vote for yourself!! Or someone like you.
Glenn,
Thanks for clarifying. Still, you haven’t addressed the original point of the piece, which was that the framers of the Constitution could have, but chose not to, grant the federal government power to make laws regarding any of the issues I raised above.
They left those issues to be decided by the states, and they did that intentionally. But since the founding the federal government has gradually usurped state power and that trend must be reversed.
If your issue really lies with my choice of the word “morality”, I would argue that our national drug laws are in fact based on subjective standards of morality.
What else can explain the illegality of marijuana coupled with the legality of tobacco, alcohol, and other far more dangerous substances? Certainly not science, logic, or the Constitution.
Mr. S. Gantt, it does seem like a “health care plan” debate, doesn’t it. It is known as the “political” side, inspite of Madisons warning, this fight for the Constitution. The “shooting” side is more aggressive to be sure, but, I guess there is room for both.
It is a great shame that the masses, young and old, know only what the media is told by the government to release to them. Adolph Hither said on many occassions: “One can tell a lie, to the masses, as though it were the truth, loud enough, long enough and often enough and they will soon believe it to be so and begin to repeat it themselves.” A simple form of brain-washing.
For many decades, this has percistantly been flowing from the “Hallowed Ground” in Washing, D.C. They swore, for many years, that “Communism was Dead” and all the time they were planting and fertilizing the “seeds” on the fertile soil of America. Totally wasting the lives, monies and materials of a once great nation. In reviewing the writings of many of the Founding Fathers, they warned repeatedly, not to get involved in foreign entanglements!! The final smoke has yet to clear, the last dead body to be in it’s grave, the last ship, plane or military land vehicle to be destroyed on foreign soil and the last billion dollars has yet to be offered-up upon “The Alter of War”. Every bit being warned against, in the beginning and by men of great wisdom and guidance capabilities. It was always done under the disguise of “Protecting and Defending America and the rights and privileges of her citizens!” And what do we really have now?
This same Constitution was supposedly an assurance to us, We The People”, that those that we elected to certain positions and those persons that they appointed, were sworn to “uphold and defend this Constitution, this NAtion and this People.” Very visible references to the initial presence of God in this country’s establishment, is still present all over the grounds of government, in Washington, D.C.
IF you look close enough, one can see that “whether or not the existing government adheres to said Constitution is the sole responsibility of “We the People”….. DUH!! The apathetic, complacent, stupid masses want and expect others to run things for them … YET, they know little to nothing about OUR Constitution and, truthfully, nothing about those in any office in Washington. Most especially, the President!! What’s so sad is, the man in the street in Honduras, knows more about those in his government than most know about our own. “The proof is in the pudding”!! IF they had, we’d never be where we are today.
Raising a Red Chinese Communist Flag on American soil, for any reason, should be considered an open Act of Treason. That was no less an expressive Act of Terrorism than the Bommbing of the Twin Towers. Again, it’s clearly defined in OUR Constitution AND “We the People” are held responsible by God and (supposedly) by each other to see that it is followed.
While Charles Manson remains in prison for acts he was responsible for, equally, we have those in Washington who have done and are doing equally horendous things to “We the People” and to America, as a nation, while we sit like scared rabbits in a briar thicket.
All because “We the People” have continually OD’d on the Jay Leno “Jay-Walking Allstar” pills that we so readily accepted, will in no way remove the “guilty as charged” from around the necks of the masses, when the new American flag is unfurled over Washington, D.C. USA (United Soviet America) and all witness the area where the stars were once displayed, having been replaced by a Hammer and Sickle on a Red background. You will then definitely “stand up and be counted” or seek safety, to fight another day.
We could possibly prevent that climatic failure, if we removed our heads from the sand and accepted the actual truth … for a change, we might just save today’s youth from facing what so many millions of others have faced. The fight of prevention is usually less painful than that of complete restoration, if started soon enough.
Congress is doing a fine job of working out details for the Health Care Bill?! I ask the 10th Amendment members to contact their State Reps, Senators, Govenors, and State Legislatures and ask them to have the CBO “SCORE” the House and Senate “MARKS” for Mandated costs that will be passed on to your State over the next 10-20years. This should be done for the individual bill and certainly for the combined legislative bill once drawn up for a final vote.
Each State Government should be given the right to know what financial liability the Federal Government is planning to encumber them and their citizens with. How many States will the “passed down cost of health care reform” bankrupt when added to the cost of present mandates?
The President has said he will not sign any bill that adds to the National deficit. He never promised he would not sign a bill added to State financial liability!
Senator Crapo offered an amendment to the Senate “Mark” ie Bill that quoted the Presidents promise that health care reform would not cost the taxpayer a dime! DEMOCRATS voted 12 – 11 to opppose an amendment be
placed in the Senate bill that quoted the Presidents promise!! WHY?!
If we would stand in defense of States Rights, then we must demand the States defend their rights under the Constitution. Does the Consttution grant the Federal government the power to pass programs/laws that encumber the States with a financial MANDATE to pay for them? I am sure any of our members with a legal background could offer me a quick Yea or Na? Just some food for thought.
dtw
Congress is doing a fine job of working out details of the healthcare bill, what???
I’ll tell you what, when Congess (or any other government entity) can show me where it (or any other government entity) has any legitimate business whatsoever involving itself in healthcare, then I’ll agree or disagree with the assertion that Congress is doing a fine job of it. As it is, the only ‘fine job’ Congress is doing is the job of overthrowing the principles of the constitution. Which too many people recognize to allow to go off without a hitch.
In other words, if Congress does not want a civil war, then it’s best advised not to start one. End of story.
Just some food for thought….. In the Holy Bible, one can find a reasonably large amount of Scripture concerning: “unity”, “agreement”, “to be in one accord”, etc. This is Scriptural Truth that will be found tp work successfully …. in any “format”, so to speak. EVEN in man or animal! One can consider it being done in the world’s plant life, in a form of consideration.
Example #1. Three men spent a considerable amount of thought and time in the planning of a robbery. Given that scenario, their chances of a successful “job” being pulled off is rather good. This is not saying that they also stand a good chance of being apprehended, after the “job”. #2 Three “slick dudes” (probably “politicians in training”) are out cruising around and suddenly decide to rob a 7-11! In this rather stupid act, 1 or more stand probably a 50/50 chance of being shot and/or possibly killed … for only a few bucks.
Now, go back in time for scenario #3 and recall the lengthy Black Race Riots, etc. that started back in the 1950s. 1… they were well “educated” in what their intended goals were, where and how their “gatherings were to be carried out. 2 … they were in total agreement that “Whitey” was their enemy, the main and direct cause of “where they were” and the one responsible for their past American Black History. They were also in agreement that this same “Whitey” owed them and was going to have to pay the bill in full!
Sadly, the ignorance of “Whitey” came into full bloom and he showed just how stupid he really was! He did exactly what Uncle Sam wanted him to do!!! Whitey couldn’t see the Communist Issue because the government made sure it ‘appeared to only be nothing but a “Black” issue. This way, they had no worry about the Whites and Blacks uniting forces and keeping America in line with the Constitutional guide lines.
ALSO, they found it rather easy to maintain what appeared to be a Two Party Governmental System. There has never been a “fair playing field”, when it comes to American Politics. The “trip” through American is pure truth and proof of one major thing relating to the Word of God: ” The LOVE of Money(referencing wealth of any form) is the Root of All Evil.” In other words: if a person or groups of persons are doing what they are doing, SOLEY for a personal or group increase in wealth … then, what they are doing is: Evil, Wrong, Being done for the wrong reason, etc.
Considering this, reconsider the past! Reconsider the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Look at the personal lives of each of the Founding Fathers. Look at the various Fraternal Organizations that were represented. Examine some of the personal writings of said Founding Fathers.
As a national government, look at some of the attempts that they undertook that left bad stains on American History. Our intentional desire to eradicate the American Indians was America’s first open attempt at a national act of genocide. This erupted, at a later date, under the auspices of Abortion, mainly as an attempt to stem the overflow crop of babies that were a direct result of severely poor family upbringing and the sic attempt of an educational system that tried to engage in family planning and childhood sex education(both failing miserably). Just another “little matter” that “man” wanted someone else to takeover his job and responsibility in doing.
When this “Health Care Volcano” finally errupts, “We the People” will again be expected to fund a “test program” that has no way of working and places “We the People” in worse position than what we had been in. All-the-while, those making the decisions aren’t really worried, they have their own system!! Also, it’s just another step towards the New World Order’s decision that the World must have a 75-85% population decrease, by whatever means neccessary!! THIS should make you look at the problem without sunglasses. Doubt this??? Check any site that reveals the minutes of the Bilderberg Comission Meetings. THIS should really rock your boat! Especially if you believed the response from past Presidents about these meetings: “Oh, there’s nothing to these meetings. It’s just some area “Good Ole Boys” getting together for a fun weekend. Sure!! Under armed guards with orders to “Shoot to Kill”??
Surely, you don’t really think that those Clowns in Washington can do all of this by themselves??
SpencerGantt,
Thanks for your comment, you are right on. The article by Josh is very good but really goes nowhere toward solving any political problem because no “solution” is mentioned.
Any legislation (law), Local, State, and or Federal, “infringing” on a Right is unconstitutional. So the question becomes what can you, Mr. & Mrs. America, “forcibly” do about unconstitutionality?
As Mr./Mrs. America can’t legislate (Article I, Section 1, only Congress can legislate) so Mr./Mrs. America can’t repeal legislation either. However, Mr./Mrs. American is the only entity that is authorized to (can/may) use the ballot box to hire (elect) government, Local, State, and Federal, Lawmakers. If you do not like “infringing” legislation than quit gripping about it and do something “forcible” about it – quit reelecting Incumbents, especially to the House in Congress every two years.
Article I, Section 1, Clause 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
Allan
Hi Josh,
I actually do agree that the Feds are going way way beyond the boundaries delegated to them by the people via the Constitution.
The only things I know to do about it is to: get and keep the masses aware of the problem and emotionally dissatisfied with the problem not being fixed; elect people who agree too, so they can possibly impact the Feds; provide voluntary time to help legislators write legislation to reverse the Feds; produce free local weekly seminars to educate the people about the Constitution and where it is not being followed; or file a legal suit against the Feds to get the infractions fixed by the courts.
More needs to be done than just whining (something I do too) about it on the internet.
As far as morality being relative and subjective, I agree. However the relative and subjective morality of the masses is the best one, per my prior post.
The masses have decided that Marijuana is different enough from other, legal drugs, that it should not be made legal. This constraint is in place because it is deemed by the masses to be good for the maintenance of the civilization in which we live. The fact that you or some others think it should be legalized means the best subjective morals (of the masses) relative to legalizing marijuana is inconvenient for you and others. However, the masses have decided that the great majority of people do not want the social inconvenience they believe will result in making marijuana legal. I am certain there are other illegalities that inconvenience every single one of the people in the masses. So, in the case of marijuana, you happen to be inconvenienced. Just consider it your personal burden (and we all have burdens) to carry and make more productive use of your limited time on earth instead of worrying about marijuana legalization.
In respect to the Constitution and “freedom” the American people are their own worst enemy for they understand neither the Constitution nor freedom.
The Tenth Amendment – if a power is not “written” in the “Constitution” then fedgov is not delegated that not written power. Fedgov was not delegated a or any power over the People, the People are free to own and personally use anything they can acquire by honest means.
Morality and religion has no place in the “government” of Constitutional America. The government of Constitutional America is ruled by law, man’s law (Constitution), not ruled by God’s law, nor ruled by man.
The Constitution creates a government to “protect”, not the People, nor Rights or freedom, but the physical USA, settle squabbles between the States, and domestically very little else, but leave the people alone. Government, Officials, take an Oath to abide by the Law of the Constitution, that is the People’s legitimate “Will” for government Officials to do and the People cannot change that. If the People could “Will” government Officials to do something other than honor the Oath of Office then the People could amend the Constitution by their Will; the Constitution says in writing it requires agreement of three fourths of the State’s Legislatures to properly Amend the Constitution.
Allan
To begin with, I’m glad to see blogs like this. It’s the second that I’ve seen in 24 hours which brings up the point about the constitutionally limited federal government, this one doing a better job, IMO.
Although both liberals and Constitution-ignorant conservatives are to blame for the corrupt, power-hungry federal Congress, IMO, I believe that the problem with Congress originates with US citizens themselves. More specifically, US citizens, even conservatives, have evidently not been teaching the Constitution and its history, particularly the enumerated principle of state sovereignty, to their children for many generations. And when people forget about state sovereignty, the Oval Office and Congress wrongly becomes a king and a king’s court in the eyes of the constitutionally uninitiated; a narcissistic president becomes an idol that people start bowing down to as evidenced by Obama and his misguided followers.
What’s going on, IMO, is that state sovereignty-ignorant voters have been electing lawmakers to both the state legislatures and the federal senate who are as state sovereignty-impaired as the voters are. Consequently, these lawmakers have not been doing their jobs to protect state sovereignty by protecting citizens from illegal federal taxes and unconstitutional federal government interference in their lives. Such interference is evidenced by the threat of illegal Obamacare.
Finally, the following link should help give people an idea how state sovereignty-ignorant voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792
The People are constitutionally stupid and politically well educated – er, well indoctrinated. The People can’t legislate; therefore, they can’t solve any political issue but one – the Oath of Office.
The People vote for candidates based on their side of a political issue and even then the candidate alone cannot legislate. The only campaign promise a candidate can actually keep or do alone is honor the Oath of Office.
Allan
This is not a left-right issue this is an up-down issue.
Well now, where do I start?…How about the definition of the word constitution: “an established LAW or CUSTOM”. Can LAWS or CUSTOMS be changed?…Yes, the 1787 US Constitution has been amended 27 times and many States have since amended or scraped the old and wrote a new one for themselves….My point is that this CONSTITUTION business is exactly that: A business that employs thousands across the country. Like it or not, but for some, it is a goooood business…
In conclusion I leave with this thought: By fixing that “230+ year old car” you will still have an old car. It is too late and not practical to return to the horse and buggy, so maybe it is time to look for a “new” car.
To Mr. Hampton, I was with you till after your second post…Sorry
To Mr. Eboch, I blame you for an awakening article. Thank You.
Casey,
I welcome and encourage disagreement but I can’t comment on what you disagree with until I know exactly what it is you disagree with.
You relate the Constitution to an old car and in a way that is a good analogy but shouldn’t we keep in mind if it ain’t broken then don’t fix it? I don’t know anything broken about the 1787 U.S. Constitution.
My understanding of studying the Constitution is it creates a government, delegates it certain limited powers to protect the physical USA, settle squabbles between the States, and domestically very little else but leave the People and religion alone.
The People can’t legislate federally nor can the People amend the federal Constitution. The States can’t legislate federally but three fourths of the State’s legislatures in agreement can Amend the federal Constitution. State’s legislation and Constitutions cannot override or overrule the federal Constitution. The federal Constitution’s Oath of Office applies to all, Local, State, and Federal, elected Officials and all Judges; Reference the last paragraph of Article VI.
In essence the People or States can’t constitutionally ask, tell, or demand the federal government (Officials) do anything else but honor the Constitution’s Oath of Office.
What would you want government Officials to do in their official acts/duties other than exercise the powers delegated them by the Constitution – What else other than honor the Oath of Office?
Allan
I’m starting to wonder if we should not approach this issue by exploiting the hard core lobbing interest in each state on both sides the drug, gun, life and choice lobbies in each state where their strongest.
Basically sell the one with the most to gain on the issue on the idea of implementing nullification. Then go talk to the other side in and get them sold on the issue as well convening them they got the most to gain. (Key will be keeping them from knowing each others views until they begin to act and both are convened, at which both they both need to be convinced they are best situated to win, on the new battlefield)
Basically we could and SHOULD be playing both sides for 2 reasons:
1: There the most likely and most powerful to push relatively radical nullification actions.
2: If any one of them does it on their issues the other will innately come out against it unless we already convene them this is their path to victory.
In short we have to convene/trick them to wanting to play this game on a different battle field.
Almost inevitably, the one we will be most successful with will also be the one which is most powerful in that particular state. For exactly the fact that they are the most powerful in that state!
We have to keep both sides divide or in support nationally on the issue.
Decentralization is a great cause, lets exploit its strengths, in practical implementation!
Monorprise – I strongly agree that we should be lobbying all sides of the political aisle…on whatever issue is strongest for that area.
that way, people in CA can show how decentralization works well for them in …say….marijuana, and MT can show how it works well for them in guns. The list is nearly endless.
And since this is just how the founders wanted our society to be set up, I would balk at the use of the work “trick” – we’re just selling the advantages of radical decentralization and constitutionalism to people of all beliefs and backgrounds.
Mr. Hampton,
The farm boys that fought in the Revolutionary War knew nothing of the 1787 Constitution, but they knew right from wrong. Are we that different today from them as people? If they could get a “new” constitution (old one was king Georges), then why can’t we get a new one too?….Are we at war now as they were then? Yep. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City and on that farm in NH where the Hessians “got” that 68yr old grandma and her guns, just to name a few battles sites. If our Constitutional Republic has became so distorted that it is almost unrecognizable, and if our “elected” are so powerless as you say…then we are in a heep of trouble and should try something else. Since “one size will not fit all”, maybe we should divide. Hey, many States are no angels either, but I only live in one.
Please accept my high regard for your body of work and thought,
Your servant.
Casey
Casey,
Yes, the farm boys in the revolutionary war (1776 -1781) didn’t know anything at all about the 1787 Constitution.
And yes, Americans can write a new Constitution and I ask how would you word it differently than the 1787 Constitution? And “who” would you designate to “enforce” it and by what method?
Concerning knowledge about the purpose of a government of a country of a free people, the 3 million Americans that ratified the 1787 Constitution evidently had much greater knowledge of the purpose of such a government than the 300 million Americans today.
Right & Wrong; are there not two wrongs, sin and crime? One of Americans Duty in Citizenship is, as a Juror, to judge crime. Considering the number of Americans in jail for possession of marijuana I believe Americans don’t know what a crime is.
Allan