by Bob Greenslade
Let’s cut to the quick. I am sick and tired of hearing people get excited over the Republican presidential debates that seem to take place every other day. For the most part, they are a pathetic joke because they only perpetuate the usurpation of power. The general election debates in 2012 will be more of the same.
Under our system of government, the powers of the federal government and the president are defined and limited by the Constitution. You would never know that listening to the questions and analysis by media pundits. What’s next? Asking the candidates if they can use the powers of the federal government to part the Red Sea or resurrect the dead?
The group discussions that follow are equally troubling because they focus on perceptions and misconceptions concerning the powers and duties of the president. Hasn’t any one of these people taken a moment to review the Constitution before participating in a focus group or have they been so dumbed down by the education system that they are incapable locating the clauses in the Constitution?
Since presidential debates are an ongoing series of job interviews, how can the candidates apply for the office of president of these United States unless they know the 13 powers and duties of the president? If I were running the debates, each candidate would be given a piece of paper at the first debate and asked to write down the constitutional powers and duties of the president. The results would be announced before the first question was asked. Not only would it expose any imposters and tie ignorance to their tail, but it would educate the audience and frame the debate. It would also shine the light of usurpation on the sitting president for his transgressions.
That being said, the 12 original powers and duties of the president are:
1. Signs or rejects (vetoes) all legislative bills passed by Congress. If a president vetoes the legislation and Congress over-rides the veto by a two-thirds vote, the legislation becomes law and a president is powerless to reverse or negate their vote. (Art. I., Sec. 7., Cl. 2.)
Note: It has been asserted that a president can legislate through executive orders. This assertion is false and conflicts with Article I. That clause vests all legislative power in Congress. (See endnote 1.)
2. Is the Commander and Chief of the military forces (Army and Navy in the original text) of the United States. (Can use the military only after a declaration of War by Congress or an act of aggression against the United States by a foreign power or entity. Can also use the military to prevent an imminent attack. Both of these acts would be construed as an act of war against the United States. Thus, a congressional declaration of war would be a formality because the United States would already be at war. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, FDR appeared before a Joint Session of Congress and requested that body formally declare war on Japan. See endnote 2) The president is also the Commander and Chief of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States, by Congress, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.) (Art. II., Sec. 2., Cl. 1.)
Note: In Federalist Essay No. 69, Alexander Hamilton compared the war powers of the president, under the proposed constitution, to that of the King of Great Britain. (See endnote 3. See also endnote 4 on the War Powers Act.)
3. Requests opinions, in writing, from the principal officer of any Executive Department of the federal government concerning their duties.
(Art. II., Sec. 2., Cl. 1.)
4. Can grant Reprieves or Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
(Art. II., Sec. 2., Cl. 1.)
5. Makes Treaties (with foreign nations) with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. (Only by a vote of two-thirds of those Senators present.)
(Art. II., Sec. 2., Cl. 2.)
6. Nominates for appointment, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, Ambassadors, public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. Congress can, by law, vest the President with the power to appoint inferior Officers, i.e., Courts of Law, Heads of Departments, etc.
(Art. II., Sec. 2., Cl. 2.)
7. Can fill Vacancies which occur when the Senate is in Recess and unavailable to confirm an appointment.
(Art. II., Sec. 2., Cl. 3.)
8. Gives Congress from time to time Information on the State of the Union (the Union between the several States), and recommends to Congress for its Consideration such Measures (laws, etc.) as he shall judge necessary and expedient. (Note the use of the word “recommends.” Congress is free to reject his recommendations.)
(Art. II., Sec. 3.)
9. Can convene both Houses of Congress on extraordinary Occasions.
(Art. II., Sec. 3.)
10. Receives Ambassadors and other public Ministers.
(Art. II., Sec. 3.)
11. Takes care that all (federal) laws are faithfully executed.
(Art. II., Sec. 3.)
12. Commissions all Officers of the United States.
(Art. II., Sec. 3.)
13. The president was granted a 13th power and duty in 1967 with the ratification of the 25th Amendment. Section 2 of this Amendment vests the president with the authority to nominate a vice president in the event there is a vacancy in the office of the vice president. Congress then approves or rejects the nomination.
This is the extent of the constitutional powers and duties of the president. A president does not have any constitutional authority over children, education, family values, abortion, or any of the other social issues they constantly discuss in debates and when in office. The legislative and war making powers are vested exclusively in Congress, not the president. All bills raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, not the White House. The remaining powers, for the most part, relate to the internal operation of the federal government and have no direct effect on the everyday lives of the American people.
Unfortunately, the chances of a debate being restricted to the constitutional powers and duties of the president are slim to none. The American people have lived all their lives under the federal government’s usurpations of power and demand that it continue. A candidate who ran on a pure constitutional platform would not stand a chance of getting elected because most of the crap the federal government does would go away.
It has been said that a people get the government they deserve. As long as the American people keep begging for more federal control over their lives, presidential candidates will continue to respond with ideas on how to continue and expand federal usurpations of power.
End Notes:
1-Executive Orders and Proclamations.
A congressional committee report has noted: “Because the president has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President’s proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.” 85th Congress, 1st Session, Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations: A study of a Use of Presidential Powers (Comm. Print 1957).
2-The Congressional Declaration of War adopted pursuant to his request stated in part:
“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.”
Once war was formally declared, President Roosevelt, as stated in the Declaration, received the authority, from Congress, to take control of the military forces of the United States and prosecute the war to its conclusion.
When Germany declared war on the United States three days later, Roosevelt again appeared before a Joint Session of Congress. Congress responded by formally declaring war on Germany. This Declaration gave Roosevelt separate authorization and control over the military forces of the United States. Each Declaration was distinct from the other.
If the president, as commander in chief, had the constitutional authority to initiate war, as some now claim, then there would have been no need for President Roosevelt to have appeared before a Joint Session of Congress on two separate occasions in 1941. He could have simply by-passed Congress by invoking his authority as commander in chief. In addition, if a president has unlimited control over the military forces of the United States, then why did it take two separate declarations of war in 1941 to authorize and direct President Roosevelt to employ the military forces of the United States against Japan and Germany? If the office of the president had independent power over the military, through the commander in chief provision, then President Roosevelt could have authorized and directed himself to employ United States forces against these nations.
3-“The President is to be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
Since a president acts merely as the highest-ranking admiral or general, he lacks the constitutional authority to determine the nation that war can be waged against. Only Congress can make that determination. This is the purpose of a formal declaration of war. It specifically designates the nation or nations that war will be waged against. Once this is done, the president then receives the power to act offensively and prosecute the war to its conclusion.
During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787, it was proposed to grant Congress the power “to make war.” A separate proposal to vest this power in the president was debated and rejected. It was asserted that a president should not have the power to initiate war because he could not be trusted with such a power. The proposal to substitute the word “declare” for “make” was agreed to unanimously. (See Art. I., Sec. 8, Clause 11 for Congress’ power to declare war.)
4-In 1973, over a presidential veto, Congress passed a statute known as the War Powers Act. A provision of this Act purports to give a president extraordinary control over the military forces of the United States without a congressional declaration of war. It should be noted that Congress cannot grant itself or a president extraordinary constitutional powers by statute. It also cannot transfer one of its powers to another branch of government. Thus, it would take an amendment of the Constitution to lawfully change the war and commander in chief provisions of the Constitution.
Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.
Please lets stop fooling ourselves and get who these documents are meant for. Our Declaration of Independence no different and is the Bedrock to keep a Public well planted within our bounds. Life in support of life because none of these rules or guidelines have a meaning at all if life in not the reason.
The next question I ask is for all of you; what is an informed public? Is it knowing the constitution, is it knowing the Declaration of Independence? Or is it understanding our Declaration of Independence and how to apply its very terms, is it to know and understand and apply these concepts in the constitution to have full liberty in this country? To apply these terms with no consideration of what others think but a full knowledge of what the right thing is for life. Does life include all life or by saying life is it just you?
Until as a nation we become well anchored to our principals as applied daily and stand firmly upon our foundation with a full understanding of all parts and all reason with a full knowledge of the Constitution and its true representation will we sit here in defiance of ourselves by our own ignorance of ourselves.
An informed Public inside of A Republic is by far the most force in all the land but we will never have the chance to know this as long as we do not start with the most basic parts of all and this is you my friend, LIFE with the decision to be in support of life as A Republic. To LIVE in Liberty in pursuit of accomplishments that both preserve life as well sustain life because this is our capability should we understand ourselves.
As ignorance attempts to ignore life by expanding itself we find ourselves in fear of those who fear us. Independence has a force unlike any other and scares ignorance to the degree ignorance will lie cheat and steel to defend itself against the independent thinker, creator and the defier of all the land. The Individual in a public informed by its actions to itself in a Republic standing upon the knowledge of itself is something to fear. This is because great results in-comparison to very poor results would be hard to dispute wouldn’t it? So do not dare let the independent free because life would start and all the bad control would end and what would all these poor tyrants do then, run home to mommy? I think not.
Bob, I agree with every point you put on this article but there is one question unanswered in this statement?
Who enforces the Constitution, who upholds these 12 original powers? Elections?
These debates are nothing but a showing to choose sides like kids in the 3rd grade. Ignorance on the side of ignorance but in this case it is one side on the same as the other side asking you to pick sides when in fact no sides even exist.
There are some real big basics missing here, first off you have to have defiance, to stand against. This does not have to be militant, it has to be intelligence. There has to be structure, a foundation in which to operate from. It is nice to have all these well thought out documents but what we do not have is defiance or the standing against when these are not done exactly as defined.
Who is it that stands, some other? Who are the determined in this country, some other? Who are the genuine decision makers in this country, some other?
Hardly, it is PUBLIC that stands and an informed public stands the most firmly with the feet planted on a foundation of bedrock. Knowing what it is, why it is and how to best utilize it.
What does a Public consist of? When a Public takes upon itself such an act as defiance what does it become when it stands upon its foundation with its principals in tow? It becomes a Republic.
But here we are talking about these brilliant master pieces of ideology, limits set by our founders to instruct who on what to do? Government or Public? When Government is left up to is own accord which direction will it take if you review history?
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
You asked who enforces the Constitution?
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
@WilliamSchooler
You asked who enforces the Constitution?
Following the so-called Declaration of Independence, which is titled: “The Unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,” the people within the individual colonies agreed to unite as political entities called States; not as one people of all the colonies or States.
The Articles of Confederation established a partial union or confederation between the people of the individual States as States; not between the people of all the States as comprising one nation.
The Constitution did not change that relationship. All power under the Constitution, as originally written, was vested in the people as States. The people of all the States, as comprising one nation or people, have absolutely NO power under the Constitution.
In my mind, the question is: what is the proper procedure for the people, as States, to enforce the Constitution between the States, because the people of all the States, as comprising one people or nation, are powerless to do it.
@Bob Greenslade
The idea is to become independent and what is it the Declaration of Independence does for us? and how do we apply this to us going forward?
You are stuck on one portion our founders were sure of and that is, in order to have a Republic which is life in support of itself by its own actions would have to have in place Liberty to achieve and allow life to pursue such achievements, this would be none other than the constitution and it would be very good for us to know full well the order of such things.
You cannot only know one document without knowing the other document because one very much supports the other and this discovery for me has made a very clear picture. Now I am sure if I am able to have such a clear picture others are very capable of this very same task, you only have to be willing to listen and then investigate and then serve yourself the knowledge you have been given. Decide from such truths and move forward in your direction should you choose to live as and well in such A Republic. These are tasks, not views.
@Bob Greenslade
You are so right Bob how could I get that wrong knowing that individuals could actually learn and apply the Principals of A Republic would only be limited to 13 states.
Actually that is vested in Sovereign states individual of each other.
Again the Constitution is not to give me or take away such powers, it is to to limit Government of such powers because without it Liberty may not exist.
My powers unto myself are a direct relationship with me and my principals in the Declaration of Independence and authorizes me AS LIFE to stand up for life independent of corrupt Government and is my sole authority.
Proper procedure is to educate you on the foundation of this country and to understand these principals in order to decide from. As we have seen a Constitution can and has been corrupted by corrupt but my principals have not changed and are stationary.
Then it is those uniting on such a principals fully knowing it is based on A Republic which is individuals in public allowed to be heard as in politic within each state. To enforce our states to live up to such principals and as A Republic. Since we are sure the perversion has run down hill from the Federal Government to our States it is up to us to recognize the source and cut it off at the head by separating our states from such a corrupt entity. One of the very things that is corrupt is no union state sovereignty exists today because of the social security card making us federal states verses union state sovereignties and this was done by the financiers of the world.
@WilliamSchooler@Bob Greenslade
I am dying to hear the specifics on how the document commonly known as the Declaration of Independence can be used to prevent the federal government from usurping power and infringing on the god given rights of the people.
@Bob Greenslade
Actually Bob what happens if you start living because I reveal these to you?
Lets start by what is the Declaration of Independence as Documented? It in fact is documented truths to be USED also known as applied. How you ask?
In it there are 3 very basic gifts, these 3 gifts are what all life has and was given at life. These are commonly known as inalienable rights but since looking at them as gifts has certainly changed the course for me personally.
These Gifts are; Life, this is something that encompasses all life in support of all life as well the expansion of all life, also known as natural and means not by your manipulation. Liberty is the next one and we have to have liberty for life to live life, its curiosities, explorations and discoveries. It means to be free from outside influence and manipulations by others, it is a key component to life itself or false authority will abuse its influence as well its lie.
The Pursuit of Happiness is something most in life do not get at all. Happiness is an effect of something caused and by pursuing ideas and bringing them into existence that supports both Life and Liberty creates in effect happiness by our achievements to ourselves, achievements of growth and knowledge and capability of ourselves. Truly they cover everything about you and when used in your life for the purpose to support these principals will totally support you.
These do not change because they are stationary truths you don’t get to pick, but they are very recognizable if you look at you.
@Bob Greenslade
Now there is one gift I have not mentioned yet and its evidence is everywhere around you and is entirely the cause of all things regardless of what you THINK.
This gift is the will to decide and I assure you if you look around and see all things you will discover a decision took place whether by one or by many will make no difference. That not one thing has taken place without such a skill.
This said does indicate some authority, or some power to accomplish tasks or achievements whether good or bad. Now the question becomes how do we get good achievements versus bad achievements? By informed decision making skills, by using what we do know to be true in each decision made. That all effects are a direct effect of their cause and who is cause in each life anyway?
The only reason Federal Government makes such progress in this direction they take is because no resistance exist. Another words us living in this society do not know our very basis of our Independence do we and therefore we make poor decisions on what we don’t know versus informing ourselves and making choices on what we are certain of and that my friend is the truth.
And the best part of this statement is the CHOICE IS YOURS. After all responsibility is also one of the gifts given to all, only it too is not use much at all.
The Declaration of Independence also gave us warnings in which to work from that were experienced by those who wrote these, they were not in doubt and were sure these were useful for future generations. The constitution is in direct relations to this document in that it afford us liberty should we as individuals challenge said authorities by knowing our foundation well, by knowing this is A Republic and not a Democracy and by knowing all these things well and standing on them as the final decision our total foundation to ourselves as discovered. Not only by some of us now but as well was discovered by our founders as attested truths to US.
@Bob Greenslade@WilliamSchooler
Earlier forms of central government gatherings were gatherings of State Delegates. These functions became a gathering of the the Union of States. That seems important recognizing that it was the State Delegates in Convention that ratified the Constitution. We no longer have Delegates of the States gathering in the Congress. As authors of the Constitution, it seems that the States have a direct interest in the original intent; and of the conditional requirement as “and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.” In other words, doesn’t this requirement prevent the 17th Amendment sense ‘suffrage’ breaks down to representation?
@DaveLyons@Bob Greenslade@WilliamSchooler
You might find the following of interest relative to your question.
In the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention of 1788, Mr. Ames made the following statement concerning the original method of electing members to the Senate and the consequences if the people elected them:
“But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachment of the federal Government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights.”
Looks like he was a prophet!
@DaveLyons@WilliamSchooler
During debate on the proposed constitution in the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, William Davie stated:
“The next department is the Senate. How is it formed? By the states themselves. Do they not choose them? Are they not created by them? And will they not have the interests of the states particularly at heart? The states, sir, can put a final period to the government…. If the state legislatures think proper, they may refuse to choose senators, and the government must be destroyed.”
Not only was the original method of appointing members of the Senate a check on federal power, as stated above, but State control over the individuals in the Senate is important for several other reasons.
? The power to try impeachments is vested exclusively in the States through the Senate.
? The power to ratify treaties is vested exclusively in the States through the Senate.
? The power confirm ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges, and other officers of the United States is vested exclusively in the States through the Senate.
Since the States are vested with the power to perform these important functions because they are critical to the operation and preservation of our federal system of government, the Amendment needs to be repealed.
@Bob Greenslade
Well Bob Mr. Ames was a visionary, or he was a great observer of things he experienced. After reading this it made it only more clear why people should know well themselves and their foundation of themselves to know exactly who and why they appoint. But then this would be informed choice versus the typical popular choice or the acceptance without the work at all.
The constitution does not give ME rights an is supposed to limit Government when applied.The declaration of Independence made this abundantly clear and since it too is an applicable document should it be understood would insist on the upholding of the Constitution to LIMIT the idiots.
A state is only as strong as the informed people in it and pretending to be informed gives far poorer results than a truly informed public.
Answer me this Bob, who is it that informs you about you? Just take out the constitution for a moment and discover you as you actually are, now read the Declaration of Independence again and does it describe you in truth and in principal?
If teachers would TEACH about our Constitution, then we wouldn’t have so many young people ignorant of this great country(with all it’s faults). They don’t teach how much we give to other countries and to the poor, nor how we as a young country have been exceptional.
Then why isn’t it really like that? Because WE let it get as far as it has gotten!! And all the talk in the world isn’t going to change it!!
They are enumerated as well.
That is until the Defense appropriations bill passes. After that, the Constitution, Congress, and the Judiciary will cease to matter. It grants far too much power to the President.
Oh this would be such an interesting thing to see because Ron Paul would win hands down.
understand the act of 1871,and you will see the president rules by executive order,he is commander in chief,in other words weve been under military rule..our right endowed to us from the creator are in declaration of independance..
Laws which contradict the constitution are invalid.
This is what all presidential candidates need to know. Start educating children correctly in grade school and it will help.