Comments on: What Would Madison Do?

By: 10th Amendment 101: Essential Reading for Tenthers | California Tenth Amendment Center

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:48:39 +0000

[...] What Would Madison Do? [...]

By: Bryce Shonka

Bryce Shonka — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:28:19 +0000

Scott, good explanation. I take issue with those making a mockery of the constitution…the big picture of what the framers intended is so clear if one wants to see it, semantic jousting shouldn't be a part of the discussion, but alas…

By: Terry Morris

Terry Morris — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:12:51 +0000

Scott wrote:

…our food travels across state lines and needs roads to do so. Such was evidently not the case in Madison's day.

Every now and again I run across a saying that actually causes me to feel stupider for having read it. Such is the case with Scott's statements I've italicized above.

They didn't have roads in Madison's day, eh, Scott? That's news to me. We're talking about the same Madison, right? The James Madison who wrote Federalist no. 42. That Madison? I guess they didn't have rivers and bridges either in Madison's day, eh Scott?

Nah, we've got to be talking about two different Madisons here.

P.S. Scott, was it your intention to make yourself out to be as idiotic as Nancy Pelosi, et al? Or was that just purely accidental?

By: Drake Bailey

Drake Bailey — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:38:38 +0000

That which is honestly 'purchased' is only as valuable as its price. Then the worth of a thing is limited to what is willingly paid for 'it'.
In this, as in all cases, it all boils down to the passion of anyone to offer balance. Just as that lady holding the 'balance' can only use it while blinded, so today only a few voices cry in the wilderness.
The philosophy involved here has been purposely omitted by those who know its power. Just as religion is the opiate of the people, now it is overdosing on information. And of that, only the approved content greets the general public…
Because this is seen as an academic subject, few will be interested. As has been shown by the popularity of the nonsensical gets the needed attention that important subjects deserve.
Few want to think past anything more than simplistic video games…
In combination, it is found that one attempting to find the real base of these discourses, lacks the will and education in order to do so.
Until, and only when, these issues directly and personally affect the general public, will the populace take note…and even then, any real action is doubtful. Note the lack of interest in what were biting issues in our recent past, now largely ignored. No draft, no worry of goin where they shoot people.
How then would an ideological argument play out? These, they's, would run from it. Just as is being witnessed by the lack of interest in most all of this…not even the possibility of death gets attention.
Only a very few of those involved here are passionate enough to take any real action.
So other than serious personal violation, what does it take for honest motivation?
Must be that few see any future for themselves, so why not enjoy what short time we all have left…Hmmm?
There are several things going on that should be addressed…a treaty to adopt weapons controls through the state department offered by the UN, The Hate Crimes Bill, The Food Safety controls through the FDA, etc.
Absolute control being acquired by the fed have mostly already happened…
So now what?
Time to offer freedom from the end of a gun…?

By: Elijah

Elijah — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:50:51 +0000

Scott:
Regulation did not mean the same then as it does today. One of the key issues in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the definition of the term “regulation”. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), a regulation is “a rule or order prescribed for management or government; a regulating principle; a precept.” It is usually understood today as a “rule of order prescribed by superior or competent authority relating to action of those under its control. Regulation is rule or order having force of law….” and a function of a government. But in its original meaning, current at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, it included self-regulation, not just regulation by a government. The controversy, which arose soon after adoption, is whether the power to regulate includes, as a “necessary and proper” power (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18), the power to impose criminal penalties, or only civil penalties. The understanding of Jefferson and Madison, and many others of the Founders, was that it did not. See the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 ( http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm )and the essay “Federal Criminal Powers Limited”. ( http://www.constitution.org/jeffcrim.htm ) However, later generations have departed from that understanding, and, in combination with the “commerce clause” (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3), ( http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm#con1.8.3 ) extended federal criminal jurisdiction to anything having a “substantial effect on interstate commerce”, especially after the appointment of compliant judges to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937. There is also an issue arising from the practice of the U.S. Congress of adopting general legislation and delegating to executive agencies the power to promulgate “regulations” to define the details of such legislation. But, those “details” often amount to substantive law never contemplated by the U.S. Congress, and constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to an executive department, something forbidden by the U.S. Constitution and a violation of the principle of the separation of powers it enbodies. The reversal of these usurpations is a focus of efforts to return government to compliance with the original intent of the Founders.
Please see also:
http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:10:11 +0000

This is correct Garrett, such an idea is also an assault upon the rights of the people and democracy, We did not get a vote as to weather or not we consisted to the Federal Government could declare the "right to privacy" to the exclusion of the "right to life."

The usurper U.S. Supreme Court robed we the people of that right in many times perhaps the most volatile of which was its ruling "Roe v. Wade" back in 1973.

This was not the will or consent of the people this was the dictatorial order of a usurper U.S. Supreme court shoving its opinion and views upon the people. As a direct result of this dictatorial order , as many as 40+ million Americans we're forced to pay with their lives, as they were denied the equal protection of their States forced by the arbitrary dictator to ignore any possibility that they were in fact human and alive, and thus as entitled to the equal protection of their rights to life as anyone else.

A living Constitution is no constitution at all, Constitution of civil Governments like all other lower laws are either constant or their arbitrary, and thus no Constitution or law at all.

By: Casey Truskunas

Casey Truskunas — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:55:19 +0000

This quest, this search for truth and justice, this agonizing over "Dead Sea Scrolls" is about as fruitful as that of Ponce DeLeons search for the fountain of youth….
There was a moment when common sense was around, when understanding of right and wrong was clear, when respect for a person and his property was unquestioned and when our lives were governed mostly by our conscience and our faith….Those days, for at least our generation, are gone…
So as the email asks: "Now What ?".

By: Garrett

Garrett — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:54:34 +0000

I meant to say there was NOT a desire to create an all powerful central government.

By: Garrett

Garrett — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:53:06 +0000

Rev Spears,

Is it right to conclude from your comments that you believe the founders intended abortion to be funded by your wages? Or that the founders would have been okay with everyone being told to get health insurance or face incarceration? From I have read of history related to the time period the founders thought that everyone should be left to make thier own way and pursue their own happiness, so long as it did not infringe on another. There was desire to create an all powerful central government that controlled all aspects of our lives.

Finally, I will say that if you believe in a "living" Constitution, then you have already doomed it to death. For if it can be reinterpretted without boundaries then it is not worth the paper, time or signatures affixed to it.

By: Garrett

Garrett — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:45:51 +0000

We know their intent because they affixed their name, via signature, to the document and as was also pointed out we have a litany of preserved documentation that shows thier thought process and therefore their ultimate intent. Freedom from tyranny was their intent and having a federal government tell you what you must do, as in the latest legislation, is unconstitutional and should not stand,