- Roger
I would like to see the 17th amendment repealed it should be the first thing we do. It can be accomplished without a Con Con, we need to propose the amendment, this could be accomplished by petition from people to their state governments.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
If the states propose an amendment that 37 of them have agreed to and signed that amendment in a lawful and Constitutional way does it not become law?
- Permalink Reply by on
- We're on the same page :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Too bad that's inaccurate.
The language of these, "in reality" is they are directive on the Government and were required for Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution.
Their purpose is to restate already existing limits on government, as reminders, but not for some aggrieved party to use, but as a means of measure for when we take action to assert Sovereign Power.
Aggregious and continued acts, or even contemplation of these acts, beyond the limits of the National Government, once known, are a signal to the people the government is seeking to enlarge itself without our permission, without Our Written Constitution. And thus we know we must act to do something about it. And that is application of Our Founders notions of Reason, Justice, and Truth, to comprehend the meaning of the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court has as much power as given, and no more, and such power is overridden the moment a State's Constitution guarantees even greater limits of government than the Constitution for the United States of America.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Things are happening.
Interest in calling a first-ever Article V convention is growing at the state level. A petition for such a convention passed the Florida Senate last month, to propose amendments requiring a balanced budget and to restrain the growth of the national government. If approved by the House, Florida would be the 20th state with an active call to do so. In the Virginia House of Delegates,Virginia Del. James LeMunyon introduced a resolution (H.J. 183) calling for a constitutional convention to restrain the national government as well. Requests by two-thirds or 34 states are required for a convention to be called.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The old Baltimore curmudgeon, H.L. Mencken, summed it up in his cynically frumpy manner when he said,
“Political revolutions do not often accomplish anything of genuine value; their one undoubted effect is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another.” While the possibility of the advance of liberty is enticing, the possibility of putting our Constitution in the hands of a much worse gang of thieves looms large, and the future of the entire Republic cannot be risked on that one turn of a card."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nothing could be more accurate, and, this is because of the diminution of State's Rights, in relation to the National Government, and, our lack of empowerment of States, particularly in these more recent years, to help bring about what needs being done without the assumption of application of Article V, whose first words are "The Congress" designating their specific authority in Amending the Constitution, when the national government wishes to do so, and absent entirely the words 'The States" in relation to the directive language of Article V, and further absent "The People" from such directive language.
I wish more had listened, had cared to look, to find out 30 years ago.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
A close inspection of the government’s powers in the Constitution shows that we don’t need to amend the Constitution, but rather to enforce what is already there, in order to restore limited government. The failure is not in the Constitution, but in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government that will not respect its clear and existing provisions. Since government does not honor the existing limits in the Constitution, we should not expect it to honor new added limits imposed by new or repealed amendment to the Constitution long before the 17 amendment was passed Oregon was electing their Senators to the Senate.
Using a constitutional convention to fix what ails our government is flawed not only because our politicians could simply ignore any revisions just as they now ignore the existing Constitution, but the proposed amendments themselves would not substantially improve the situation of our country even if the politicians did obey them.
What IMO is needed is people that will address the problem head on and get congress and the president back in alignment with the Constitution that we have.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Lock Piatt,
I agree that trying to get Congress to reverse amends 14 - 16 - 17 to reduce their power is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Any proposed amend changes will have to be through the State Legislatures and not Congress.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Lock Piatt,
That is exactly what I stated in the second sentence above. Through the State Legislatures and not Congress.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock,
Understood.
English is not a primary language in Arkansas. Heck, we only speak American down here! LOL
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- In Arizona we mainly speak gun :)
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, thank you.
This is why, for example, I do not believe in repealing healthcare, but rather, failing to identify it as a law.
The new House could issue a simple resolution deeming the "so-called healthcare law, in fact, an absolute attempt at despotism by usurpation of the Constitution, rendering it unable to be enforced under the Supremacy clause:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."--Article VI,http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Our Founders were no less clever, and it is also how we need to be.
My views on amendment are because we remain a nation operating with States that are crippled. My hope is that the Amendment process takes place some 10 years from now, on the idea we take back the Senate and White house in 2012 and have a new President who understand his role pursuant to the Constitution, and not the variety of wars declared, and emergency powers assumed therefrom.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Well the key reason is that they said it's not a tax, then passed it by what's not in the Constitution, Reconciliation.
Then, later, under sword documents to defend the law against the 20 state lawsuit, they say it's under the commerce clause and a tax!
At that moment the law we not able to be passed by reconciliation, and, it is my assertion Obama knew this every time he said it wasn't at tax in order to assure they could use reconciliation.
Reconciliation is for expenses and reconciling them across the books, this is why a tax would not qualify, and thus, the entire event, starting from the inclusion of the personal mandate in Max Baucus Senate chamber, is a fraud, sham, and absolute usurpation of the Constitution, let alone being outsice Article I, Section 8, and violating the Unalienable Right to Freedom of Choice as a government Mandate of "healthcare as a right."
I'll refrain from more hahaha @#$%!%^&*$%(|+_"#$@%!@^&* Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Progressives and their, at one time being able to "dictate where we go from here" in British Omnipotent Democracy fasion, scroll the following to 2:30 in and listen to his needing to articulate an obvious mental concern of his regarding dictating America:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey to all posters here regarding a Con Con,
I will be the first to note and state there is egg on my face. I will save that egg to go with the crow I am about to eat.
My initial understanding of what a proposed Con Con was. A group to be formed out side of the bounds of Congress or State Legislatures. It was a push to have that group rewrite the Constitution with out the constraints of the Constitution.
What got me off track in the understanding was the term/phrase Constitutional Convention verses Congress ... shall propose Amendments to the Constitution or ... Legislatures of ... States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ...
After reading and catching up on todays posts to this discussion I came to realize that the Con Con being proposed is through the two means listed in Art5.
Anything being proposed outside Constitution Art5 I am vehemently opposed to. That is where I was coming from.
Specifically for Toddy.
Pody made a blanket statement that the repeal of the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments would nullify the fed, and I am hoping to understand the angle.
My use of the word nullify was incorrect. The reversing of 16 & 17 would weaken or lessen its ability is more in line with my thinking.
I will stand corrected for this and have it as my dessert; after my main coarse of egg and crow.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- Never fear, I've eaten them both and promise they just taste like chicken :)
And thank you for being so upstanding, as it is necessary for us to move on and continue to consider the important matters at hand as the Sovereign people of this nation, along with the 300 million others, of whom many are also discussing similarly.
America is important, and Our Written Constitution for the purposes it is intended essential to Individual Liberty.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Toddy Littman,
Thank you for the support.
Let us carry on.
Pody
Permalink Reply by on - Calls for a US Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) and the lawful bounds of loose talk on that subject
OK. Confusion need not reign.
Back to the source, Y'all. Here is a true copy:
"Article V" with the text that
A) creates the ONLY lawful authority to call a Constitutional Convention (a Con-Con) , and
B) creates the ONLY lawful authority to define a Constitutional Convention (a Con-Con) in the following quote of Article V and given bold & italics font style.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,
on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes,
as part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states,
or by conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
ALL attempts to otherwise call or define the bounds of a US federal Con-Con is unlawful.
Such attempts by persons 5USC3331 sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
are no less than felony attempted statutory fraud.
While such speech by Congressmen WHILE PHYSICALLY IN CONGRESS is protected from examination outside of Congress, VOTES to implement such unconstitutional actions (described in that speech) effects statutory felony fraud lawfully requiring presentation to a grand jury and indictment.
The same consequence is required for the attempt to statutory felony by speech outside of Congress.
All attempts to talk such oath bound persons into perpetrating such statutory felony is also statutory felony – where the speaker may or may not have a competent criminal intent.
All witness of such felony by those competent to recognize the felony are bound to oppose the felony with particular acts else they become accessory to that felony at least in the ways defined by statutory “Misprision of Felony” and perhaps “Misprision of Treason”.
Lock, I will not perpetrate felony just because you find it convenient or have the conceit to call felony your right just because others do- those others are not my business at this moment. My witness of your NOW completely given notice of the law is such after this moment should I witness your dissemblance and equivocation crossing the bounds of wire fraud that lands within my jurisdiction I will take all such actions against your felony that the law requires of me. Lock, You will receive no second warning from me with respect to your knowing and willing trespasses against the law regarding your communications of the US Con-Con issue. My next communication on that will be an ‘information’ for a grand jury, competent to raise an indictment against you. You are not the fish I want hooked on my hook, Lock. But that want does not diminish my statutory duty with regard to you. What is so difficult or onerous about embracing the evidenced & confirmed truth and amending your behavior to match?
Take note that shifting the location of ", or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states" to immediately after "whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" can be a defined criminal trespass.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Russell Patton Davis
We are all here to learn from each other. Threats are not an acceptable form of communications in the forum you know that. You have done this before and your are trying to do it again. I have been warned about you and I have seen you in action before, and I have defended you, because you can and have brought unique insight to our discussions, but you will not threaten anyone in one of my discussions everyone is entitled to their opinion and freedom to speak with out fear from anyone... You will Apologies or the discussion is over.
James Russell
- Permalink Reply by on
- James Daniel Russell,
Cyberspace is not a separate world from the sovereignty of nations and states, as far as our participation in it goes we are bound by the rights and responsibilities of our country's laws and by the laws in which our action of wire communication has a leg.
Your discussion does not exist outside of the law to the best of my understanding.
I did not make a threat I made a warning of the facts delineating our law and some particular contents of this discussion.
That was a delineation of the facts of our laws and how certain writings over wire are felony, and what statutory duty exists upon the witness of that felony knowingly and willingly perpetrated.
If you are threatening me with being banned from this web site for my witness of Lock's federal felony of questionable but perhaps evidenced as probable criminal intent
then perhaps you must receive take notice that of US Code TITLE 1 CHAPTER 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE §18USC 1513(e). Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant " . . . "(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." any action you & TPP take against me from here on out requires my proper complaint and subsequent indictment.
Lock knew what he was provoking. He thinks it is smart. Lock has done this once before at Song-of-Truth -he had me banned for speaking the truth as our laws obligate. This time I have saved all the evidence of this conversation and am prepared to perform my statutory duty bringing criminal charges on those whom our law defines as criminal.
James Daniel Russell, The most practical thing you can do is close this discussion.
You TPP community what be served by not deleting this conversation so the law's thornier parts need not be revealed again, but in a context where some may play the fool in their passion and so bring themselves and perhaps TPP under indictment.
I would be willing to bet some progressive US attorney would just love to bring TPP under indictment. Given Lock's persistence it is plausible that he is paid for that purpose.
What do you bet that Lock Piat is not a real person?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'll take that bet.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Russell Patton Davis,
Reading your post I would think that treason is being put forth here, more so by Lock Piatt than anyone. Yet I go back through the posts and I do not see any statements that equate to treason.
Can you be specific and copy the post exposing treason?
Thanks,
Post
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Treason is not Lock's unless he is an officer of the court where Va18.2-481(5) statutory treason of resisting "the execution of the laws under the color of its authority"
With Lock the matter would more likely consist of Title 18 CHAPTER 63—MAIL FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD OFFENSES unless he has covert official capacity.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Russell Patton Davis,
Please copy and provide the post that shows he has committed mail fraud and other fraud offenses.
Thanks,
Pody
- Permalink Reply by on
- The matter cannot reasonably be thought to include mail fraud - wire fraud establishes the jurisdiction of USC Title 18 Chapter 63.
It appears that there are 3 or 4 counts in this discussion alone.
It will take be a while to present them as a pro forma indictment covering all the elements of the law required for conviction.
It is a bit of work but I need to do it for other reasons as well.
If in fact Lock is a real person and/or has never oathed his notice of our Constitution it is unlikely that criminal intent could be establish beyond a reasonable doubt – but probable cause appears to exist all the same, so the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ evidence may exist outside this discussion.
In the mean time, having taken notice of Title 18 of the US Code Chapter 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE please do not bring yourself into harms way for no good purpose by destroy the evidence of crime as was done in the discussion where a W.Va lawyer gave congress powers that it did not have.
Apparently the Va Attorney General took notice of my duty bound but dismissive 18USC4 presentation on that “PLENIARY POWER” conceit (back peddled by equivocation after the evidence was destroyed)– The A.G. incorporated the logic into a speech and that point received thunderous applause.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, close it if necessary, I have no trouble with that.
You posted something for input, edification, and opportunity of us here.
If some must find a means to assert superiority and supremacy over others through belittling, demeaning, and other acts that are in direct violation of what they claim is the rule and law, it would seem they are here for other reasons pursuant to such hypocrisy.
Surely words will fly, as fists once did when we were in closer proximity to each other, but to go well beyond capability to be constructive to the purposes of the discussion is disruption, and demonstrates a less than noble intention.
As all is opine, but there is certainty to the lack of the law governing every act and deed of every person here unless usurpation of the Constitution has taken place and it is turned on its head, and/or this is now a Communist Country, it would seem closure of the discussion to demonstrate the certainty these are not true is in order even though this also shows the detractors that they can get a thread closed by their numerous attempts to hi-jack it by all means necessary, insult being another means of hi-jacking, more nuclear and likely in hopes an admin closes it.
To be frank we're not sorry our discussion has been fruitful amongst we who believe in Our Written Constitution and wish to make sure it is here holding government to its limits 1000 years from now and amended rarely, and we're also not sorry that the lack of being the uneducated that you assumed of us has not proven true except always according to the legends in your own mind.
Good day.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Troy you perhaps will understand this from your previous posts. There is a mood here and indeed all across the Tea party that I will not shirk from calling into question.
You well know my entire interest is only one of liberty and limiting the powers severely to insure such. The FED is a problem in only that it attacks our liberty not on functionality.
I cannot and will not do more than offer respect to founder, document, and flag. There is a tone here that moves closer to worship than respect. You see it in the reverence given a flag that is nothing but colored cloth, words written on hemp paper, men that were as flawed as any if exceptional in their time. Yet...
What of the farmer who left field and home to bleed in service and the cause of liberty? What of the sailor who impressed into Brittan's service did not rest until he could escape back to a land of liberty? What of the smith who gave of his craft to forge weapons of war with no thought of reward or payment?
These are the men we owe our liberty, the founders government broke every promise of payment and reward to them yet they did not leave liberty's service. They did not fight for the founders, flag, or document they fought so that their children could be free.
These are those deserving more respect than founder, paper, or cloth yet they are never even mentioned. If it ever comes that time again they are also the ones on whose strength the matter will turn.
That is my final say on these maters.
.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think that Mr. Russell has a great idea and that we should look into some of these things.
- Permalink Reply by on
- What things is that Philip?
- Permalink Reply by on
- To all,
I am closing this discussion and asking that Mark take a look at it at his convenience. I have received complaints regrading legal threats being levied here. This is a forum and as such I would question anyone taking legal action for anything stated here in the form of an opinion. But since what has been shared is well above my level of legal understanding, I feel the best course it to close the discussion until further notice.
- Permalink Reply by on
THE LIES ABOUT GENERAL WELFARE
- Permalink Reply by on
- Beware of Hamilton! From what I understand, he was an unscrupulous lawyer who evidently knew both sides of an issue and would argue whichever side benefitted him personally.
In fact, the first official fight over how widely the General Welfare Clause should be interpreted saw Hamilton on one side, and James Madison and his "twin," Thomas Jefferson, fighting Hamilton.
More specifically, Hamilton knew that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had rejected the idea of delegating banking powers to Congress.
But after the Convention, Hamilton as Treasury Secretary under George Washington, cried to Washington to sign the Nation Bank bill, which Hamilton had inspired, using the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1.8.18), to argue the need, Hamilton's personal need anyway, for a national bank.
In the meanwhile, Jefferson had argued against Hamilton's bank with the following excellent explanation of the limits of Congress's powers where the General Welfare Clause is concerned.
Don't Jefferson's words reflect so well on the corrupt 111th Congress?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hamilton view on what is general welfare.
Hamilton argued that the wealth, the independence, and the security of the nation are all connected to the prosperity of manufactures. As opposed to the free traders of the time--or what we would call the ``globalizers'' today--Hamilton contended that: ``Every nation ... ought to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of {Subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.}''
``The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic; to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society .... The extreme embarrassments of the United States during the late War, from an incapacity of supplying themselves, are still matters of keen recollection,'' Hamilton wrote, urging that this was the next great work to be accomplished, lest the United States again face the same situation in a future war.
Hamilton also strenuously disputed the false but popular notion that ``though the promoting of manufactures may be the interest of a part of the Union, it is contrary to that of another part,'' particularly as that argument was made with respect to the northern and southern regions of the Union. In fact, Hamilton argued, manufacturing is in the {general} interest of the entire nation, and ``the {aggregate} prosperity of manufactures, and the {aggregate} prosperity of Agriculture are inimately connected.'' (emphasis in original)
Hamilton also addressed the issue of cognition and its relation to the national wealth: ``To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted.... Every new scene which is opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is the addition of a new energy to the general stock of effort.''
Hamilton proposed aggressive measures to promote domestic manufacturing, including tariffs, the maintenance of monopolies, the prohibition of some imports, the prohibition of exports of certain raw materials necessary for domestic manufacturing, pecuniary bounties and premiums, a system of regulation of standards and inspections; development of a payments system; and promotion of a system of transportation of goods. As to using public funds, he argued that there is no better purpose ``to which public money can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a new and useful branch of industry; no Consideration more valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of productive labor.''
Hamilton declared unequivocally that the Federal government had the right to promote manufactures under the General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8. The objects for which Congress can raise money, Hamilton explained, ``are no less comprehensive then the payment of the Public debts, and providing for the common defense and the general Welfare.''He continued:
``The terms `general Welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limit than the `General Welfare' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification or of definition.''
Hamilton then says that it is left to the discretion of the legislature to determine what matters concern the general welfare, adding: ``And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of {Learning,} of {Agriculture,} of {Manufactures,} and of {Commerce,} are within the sphere of the national Councils, {as far as regards an application of money.} (emphasis in original)
In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view.
Washington noted that ``Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of Manufactures,'' and he argued that much more needed to be done, especially invoking the idea of the dangers of the country remaining dependent on foreign supply.
Washington also argued that, ``with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,'' and he proposed the creation of institutions for promoting agriculture through ``premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.''
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick, This isn’t just the general welfare issue being used to describe specific welfare, they have also beaten up other portions of the Articles as well as the amendments. It seems that if one only look at the intent and purpose of the 14th amendment that they would realize that it has nothing to do with anchor babies or Gay marriage. I have seen people use the 14th in both subjects and am almost offended by the stupidity of the thought process. I guess that’s the method of destroying the constitution that is most effective. Taking it out of context.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I read just recently that we are spending millions of dollars rebuilding mosques in foreign countries We could not do here because it would violate the 1st amendment but we will do it overseas and wait until the public complains that we are doing it over there there why not do it here. guess its called baby steps.
- Permalink Reply by on
- were those not mosques that were damaged in the war effort?
- Permalink Reply by on
- This mosque issue is starting to get pretty big, I guess I should buy a copy and read it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If the Founders had meant That general welfare would be used as it is today to include any action that might possibly benefit citizens generally, the Constitution itself could have been limited to this solitary statement with no other limitation or rights for the states. I can understand why FDR believed that he need emergency powers to get nation out of the depression but those powers should have been temporary and limited.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank You Mr. Summer, It Is not the words and phases that are In the constitution, It Is the twisted and convoluted use of the word and phases In the constitution.
If we will elect people who do not distort the words and phases The problem will stop.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It seems this could be applied to many issues and interpreted in many different ways. Various people apply different standards to the term 'general welfare.'
- Permalink Reply by on
- I believe that the Federal government should be limited to do only those thing that would be impractical for the states to accomplish individually. It is only the Federal governments ability to seemingly produce unlimited amounts of money that has caused the states to relinquish their rights to the federal government. I say if the federal can print unlimited money they what need do they have for our taxes?
- Permalink Reply by on
- The deficit would not need to be $3 trillion--Congress could try spending less.
- Permalink Reply by on
- And if not for deficit spending the debt would be zero. Ridiculous statement Mr. moon. Pure hyperbole.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Andy is young he is learning.
LoL to both of you
Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- You seem not to be getting the point Andy, the federal government taxes un-constitutionaly based on misinterpretation of "general welfare". And in so doing takes states and individual's responsibilitie's on its own shoulders under false premise. That in turn leads to abuses (ie, pork barrel spending) which leads to shortfalls and the "need" for more taxes, which leads to more spending, and more taxes, and more "need", and the "wheels on the bus go round and round"
- Permalink Reply by on
- A interesting point I found in the course of my research is the change of language. As you all know I hate the progressive tactic of changing the definitions of words for the purpose of supporting their argument, I found this tidbit signifigantly interesting in regard to the general welfare debate,
Definition of welfare-
"Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." 1828 websters dictionary
"Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed." Current definition.
I believe A large part of the problems we face have come about due to "revisionist" interpretation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Agreed 1000%
Especially in terms of the revisionist history being taught in our schools today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- When the recession comes back in full force & the stock market crashes again,,, maybe the feds will get the idea. O% inerest rates & free money is the problem. Stop Spending!
- Permalink Reply by on
- "General Welfare" in the introduction to the enumerated powers of Article I Section 8 were never intended to be an object for extension of the power to tax and spend.
In 1937 the Supreme Court said in effect, Congress would no longer be held to enumerated powers but instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for "general welfare."
It is interesting to note that up until 1965 congress held it's spending in check, for the most part maintaining a tradition of spending within the constraints of the Constitution with the exception of Social Security and unemployment compensation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you James for bringing up the 37 supreme court, what most people dont know is that the 37 supreme court originally ruled that 8 out of 10 of the new deal cases were ruled unconstitutional, it was only after FDR attempted to pack the bench that the supreme court gave in for fear that if they did not the ursupation of power would be even greater.
- Permalink Reply by on
- There we go! Although FDR didn't get to stack the Court according to his initial plan, he was in office long enough to at least establish a majority of pro-big federal government justices.
Also note that there is no mention of Jefferson and his clarification of the General Welfare Clause, which I posted earlier in this thread, in the opinions of pivotal Court cases of the 30s and 40s which tested the limits of Congress's powers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jefferson and Madison were both much more clear of the intention of General Welfare than Hamilton was, and ironicly enough both were made clear on the basis of simple interpretation of the english language, sentance and paragraph structure....
"I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.' These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, 'all and some.' And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815
- Permalink Reply by on
- Very well said Mr. Neff.
If I had to pick a single most damaging twisting an perversion of the Constitution it certainly would be the "General Welfare" myth.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thanks Atlas.
The more I read about this the more ridiculous it gets, what is most often cited as support for implied powers is federalist 30-36, but no one applies context to it. People just got done with a war against big government taxing them to support its military efforts elsewhere in the world. They were afraid of centralized gov in general, they were afraid of a repeat of British big gov, and throughout Federalist 30-36, Hamilton was trying to explain how article 1 section 8 meant that building a Navy for example would mean it would have to accrue monies for not only ships but docks, shipyards, clothes, munitions and hundreds of other small items that if specifically enumerated in the constitution would only bog the document down. He even stated as much and used it as a example in federalist 83, but implied powers nuts will ignore that because it doesn't support their argument.
- Permalink Reply by on
- i echo Atlas' kudos Frederick. and appreciate your research, i've learned something today.
in reading over your argument it occurs to me you could probably apply most of it to the commerce clause as well. given how well this was done, I'd like to see you follow this topic up with that if it interests you.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I will be happy to Larry, the research might take some time, but I will get to it very soon.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have looked into some of the things that has driven the government into unconstitutional spending the first incident I found was in 1811 fallowing the New Madrid Earthquake the people were angry because congress had granted $50,000 to Venezuela in 1812 for earthquake relief but did little to help the victims of New Madrid Missouri so by 1814 congress relented to pressure and provided grants of public lands to resettle people whose farms and business had been destroyed. The program was so riddled with false clams that a New Madrid claim became synonym for fraud. I think this incident like so many is an example how no good deed goes unpunished, and the American public is the force behind much of the General Welfare spending and they continue to be so today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "American public is the force behind much of the General Welfare spending"
we have met the enemy and it is us
i think this is why the senate was NOT elected by the general public
- Permalink Reply by on
Beware! The most damaging perversion of the Constitution, IMO, is the USSC's silence about Article V. The USSC knows that Congress's only option around Section 8 is to humble itself and petition the states for grants of specific new powers via Article V.
The problem is that if knowledge of Article V were to made known, then the people would know that the states have absolute control of the federal government via the Constitution. So the corrupt, power-mongering federal government remains hush, hush about Article V.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Not to be argumentative, but I chose as I did because of how many things it has corrupted.
The "secret" of Article V remains but it remains intact and unused rather than perverted.
As a matter of fact for the very reasons you point out, it (Article V) is actually our "seceret weapon" in this fight. The checkmate move if you will.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ok, I shouldn't have alluded to the SC's scandalous ignoring of Article V as a perversion of that statute.
- Permalink Reply by on
- BTT....
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sorry I havent gotten back to you folks, been kind of busy.
I believe we were talking about Article V. The most important part of Article V that most people I have talked to misunderstand is the "revisionist" teaching that even if the states call for CC and then ratify, it still has to be passed by congress, that however is not the case.
- Permalink Reply by on
- BTTT
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you for chiming in Michael,
"Here is the rub IMO, [The] specification of particulars evidently [did NOT exclude] all pretension to a general legislative authority, [because a “General” legislative authority WAS] intended"
This is the part most people misunderstand, the opening paragraph of Article 1 s8 was intended as a guidline by which the Federal Government could accrue monies for the following 17 enumerated powers.
Example 1; (in 2010 terms) the federal government may accrue monies To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes in regards to common defense and general welfare. meaning they cant regulate commerce for their own personal intersts or that of their freinds, but only what is in common defense and general welfare interest of the country.
Example 2; The federal government may accrue monies To provide and maintain a Navy in regards to the common defense and general welfare. Meaning they may only hold a Navy for the defense and welfare of all states, not just ones they have interests in, nor to go to war over private oil interests, or banking interests, or whatever the individually powerfull might decide, it must be for the common defense and general welfare of the country.
Hopefully those two examples clear things up a bit.
"What constitutes “The General Welfare” in each state, should be left to THAT State."
In this Michael you are 100% correct, There are general welfare issues that are national in scope, and those have been listed in the 17 enumerated powers of Article 1 s8. All other general welfare issues are individual to the states as the "general welfare" interests of Maine are different than those of California or New Mexico, naturaly due to mostly goegraphical and weather issues.
Another issue with the General Welfare issue is, if you apply simple context to the definition differences between 1828 and today,
"Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government. " 1828 websters dictionary
"Aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need; an agency or program through which such aid is distributed." Current definition.
The Examples above have much different meanings when you apply the different definitions of welfare.
Though Madison explained it more clearly with his statement in Federalist 41, Hamiltons statement in Federalist 83 has the same meaning as Madison's.
- Permalink Reply by on
- To adress your question Michael I must first say that the reason I used "oil" and "banking" in my example was for including both Bush and Obama, as many claim bush was a oil figurehead, and Obama a banking figurehead. And to address your question, is it not one of the enumerated powers of Article 1 s8 to regulate commerce with foreign nations? Bombing them back to the stone age might be a little extreme, but economic warfare is warfare none the less. However, if in the case of this stoning it is arranged that only one or two american companies reap the benefits instead of all, that would be abuse of power.
From much of my reading of hamilton I have come to this conclusion, Hamilton at times seems kind of "flighty", dont get me wrong, not saying he wasn't a great or inteligent man, but sometimes in the course of a couple page article or paper he seems to argue the point he is trying to make, then argue that same point against himself. I also noticed he seems to ramble alot, he gets going on something and then off on a tangent he goes. LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- Michael, I dont understand what you mean by "risk takers", please clarify that statement?
And yes Hamilton was a lawyer, but to fight both sides of a argument in a writing about your opinion, its kind of like "huh".
I hope everything went ok with your primaries, mine arent for a couple more weeks. Now I think is the time we hav
- Permalink Reply by on
- You were thinking something completely different than I, what I was talking about was for example; joe oil and jeff oil convince political freinds to take the country to war with promise of board positions or whatever, after its over politicians steer oil benefits to joe and jeff, and get their cushy jobs after politics, all the while john and jake oil dont reap any of the benefits. In that situation war was not for the common defense and general welfare of the people, just a few individuals who stood to make a larger profit.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick, thank you for your thoughtful and timely discussion of this important issue ! Would love to see your piece published by a national magazine.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Thank you for the compliment Teri:), but I dont think I am that talented, besides, I dont think the editors would appreciate the humor of me in my workboots and plaid shirt writing constitutional articles showing the lack of our paid public officials ability to understand "english reading and comprehension 101" LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ok Guys and Gals;
I am not a Constitutional scholar by any shape, fact, or form. After a through read of this thread I thank all for their research and input. It appears that the problem is one of definition of the words ,General Welfare, and the application of the same. So to me the question is how do we get to an agreed upon definition?
I have no faith in the proposition that Congress will ever address this, nor do I beleive the Supreme Court can come to a decision that is agreeable to the People. So the only solution seems to be a Constitutional Convention called specifically to set a working definition of exactly what is General Welfare.
I would like to see this CC called for asap. after the November election. It has been reported that there are 22 States with Soverignty resolutions passed which leaves 16 to reach the 38 needed to call for a CC. With 36 needed to ratify any Amendent produced by the CC.
My question is ; In reality; will this be done?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Bill - Actually I think you answered your own question! A reasonable person (you) read through this and came to the conclusion this should be done.
When we are able to present the same information, in an understandable, concise way to the majority of reasonable Americans, I believe they will come to the same conclusion as you have.
There is a plan being formulated right now, non-partisan, non-Tea party, to get this message to the American people after November elections - millions at a time. Stay tuned.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I didn't do the math because I was getting ready for Church. I thought about using 2/3 and 3/4's; I guess I should have. oh well. My Bad....
- Permalink Reply by on
- Bill,
In answer to your question of what we can do: WE THE PEOPLE MUST INFORM OURSELVES AND THEN DEMAND that our Judges, lawyers and politicians listen. WE THE PEOPLE MUST be informed on how Congress has enjoyed continual growth of power with the loosening of the Necessary and Proper clause, combined with expansive readings of Commerce clause, Spending and General Welfare clause. And how over the years, these "implied" precedents and case law decisions have resulted in: Federal Education, Social Security, Medicare, HHS, HUD, AFT, DEA,FDA,OSHA,EEOC, EPA, most recently, TARP, Stimulus Bill, Health Care Bill, government take-over of banks and auto manufactures, and the list goes on and on. WE THE PEOPLE must demand the restoration of limited government, as our Founder's did and implemented (originally) into our Constitution.
"In the establishment of Societies the Constitution is to the Legislature what the laws were to individuals." - Rufus King , A Founding Father
- Permalink Reply by on
- Rian. I did not ask "can we do? I asked; In reality, Will we do it? A CC defining "General Welfare" Once is ratified will make much of what we discuss here non issues. I am aware if the potential for chaos either way it goes, but that is another topic. We get alot of talk and alot of good ideas here on this forum but.....
- Permalink Reply by on
- Bill,
Sorry, I misread. But I guess my answer is similar. First, the people need to be informed of the abuses of the Constitution and demand the restoration of, then maybe the States will feel the need to form a Con Con, but the changes must be clear and the purpose of the Con Con must also be clear. I have found that they are too many people who are apprehensive at altering the Constitution via Con Con, thinking that the Con Con will not be well organized and therefore dangerous and clumsy. I'm not sure if that can happen and be effective. I think changes can come faster with a mass voting of the Constitutional Party or Libertarian Party or Tea Party- who truly embrace the ideas of limited government and practice it. This would force the Republican Party to change, more like a "republican" Party. But right now might not be the best time to split away, unless it's a very big split.
- Permalink Reply by on
- My limited dollars are waiting for news of Television spots to do just that. Lets face it the net communications are great and get the message to many people. But TV comercials will reach many,many more. Done right with the Truth and no "spin"---Well-------- The alternative to not attempting everything within our power is not very pleasent to think about IMHO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- That idea Bill is exactly what I am talking about.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Wouldn't be great if we were raising dollars to get this done?
- Permalink Reply by on
- EVERYBODY PLEASE READ THIS:
There is a bill called HR 450 "Enumerated Powers Act" that could use OUR SUPPORT. This willrequire Congress to enumerate, not imply, when passing Bills. I like it.
You can find it at : http://www.votervoice.net/Core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&Is...
Leave it up those Birchers, God bless em.
Good luck fellow Americans.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Congressman John Shaddeg (R-AZ) has been introducing the Enumerated Powers Act each term beginning with the 104th Congress (1995). The Bill never passes. I support the idea but I am not optimistic of this bill passing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Fredrick,
Thank you for post on the General Welfare Clause. It is these things that "We the people" need to understand and demand from our politician and judges to adhere to. The word "general" means benefits all States equally - in other words, federal dollars CAN NOT go to fix a bridge Illinois or some museum in Florida, only which benefits all States equally.
Here's a link, which to Anti-federalist Paper #32, Written by "Brutus", believed to be Robert Yates, a New York judge, delegate to the Federal Convention, and political ally of anti-federalist New York Governor George Clinton. He predicted the current expansion of government would result from these misinterpretations.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp32.html
- Permalink Reply by on
- BTT
- Permalink Reply by on
- Proclamation 2040 by President Roosevelt issued on March 6, 1933, sometimes called the Emergency and War Powers order. This act, codified as 12 USC 95(b), effectively declared the Constitution suspended and conferred dictatorial powers on the President, a situation which continues to this day.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Interesting James, I will have to look into that, after everything else FDR did it does not surprise me he would be willing to do away with that pesky "habeus corpus" thing.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick
The more I learn the more I find that sickens me about our government.
This is an example of the RULE OF NECESSITY, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution. Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title 12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity and continue in a perpetual declared state of national emergency.
12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (AKA: The Trading with the Enemy Act, or, The War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes". This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It was here that every American citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration of war.
According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, we have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby thepublic good must prevail over private gain. This also provides for the taking over of any enemy private property. (all American citizens are all declared enemies). Now we know why we no longer receive "allodial freehold title" to our land ... as enemies, our property is no longer ours to own.
The only way we can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I will be doing much research on this James, thank you for giving me a place to start. I found this little tidbit you might want to see,
"Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say:
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of National emergency. In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."...
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process.
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.""
This was actually written in congress, we have long asked "how do they think they can get away with this", perhaps now we have a answer.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Definitively, it is the answer Frederick. And watch what BO does with those powers after November 2nd. If he and his masters can not rule because the people vote out his stooges, sterner measures will be applied.
We better be ready.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick
Do you think that we would have been involved in Vietnam if the law had not been in effect? When you think back to all the things that has been done by executive order it is stunning to think that no one in congress has challenged it in a serious way. It is a complete perversion of our Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- IMO changing any of this will require amending the Coinstitution. The federal government is singularly unresponsive to the will of the people of the United States, as witnessed by Obamacare, immigration reform, suing the State of Arizona for enforcing immigration laws, etc.etc. ad infinitum.
Every time we turn over a rock, something ugly and creepy about the federal government crawls out. We have but touched the tip of the iceberg.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. -
Abraham Lincoln
- Permalink Reply by on
- James, Glenn, Michael, Atlas;
Gentelman, I think we have begun to touch on some important things, and we are all beginning to see as Glenn put it only the tip of the iceburg. There are many people here that are working many different aspects of this movement, and all work to the positive is applauded. But you four gentelman and some others have shown a afinity for linking present to the past that has led us that present. In turn I will make the following proposal......
We have bantered back and forth discussing many of the issues from the past that have led to the problems of today, and I think we all can agree that the majority of these problems stem from some form or another of political action. I would like to establish some form of roundtable type group to list and link political action against the constitution over the past 100+ years. I have given a great deal of thought to this over the last several years and have come to the conclusion that now may be the time to reafirm our nation. To that affect I offer the following,
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
With the coming elections I believe we are going to see a referendum not only on the current president, his policies, and the advance of progressive socialism, but our political system itself. I think suffering, albeit in its early stages, has been seen, as well as abuses and ursurpations. So I ask you gentelman, do we reafirm our founding documents with current list, as the declaration did 234 years ago? Our political system allows for us to obtain the same objective as 234 years ago except we can do it peacefully, and the people of this country I think come november will have done no less than tell the political establishment that this is our country, and will be run the way we see fit, not the way they see fit.
A detailed comment or a simple yes or no will suffice, as we have looked at the Tea Party movement as a reafimation of our constitution, I think we should also reafirm our Declatration of Independance as a statement to our political bodies as well as the world that we are a free and soverign people, and will not have others decide for us.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I know many here are very focused on November 2nd and rightly so, I commend the hard work and commitment.
Frederick, you have touched on the idea in my mind that occured several months back. I have some definitive ideas and plans for after the election along these lines. I have refrained from introducing them here at this juncture and will continue to do so until after November 2. On November 3rd I will introduce you and the others to it and invite your needed participation. The way has been prepared.
- Permalink Reply by on
- " . . . we are a free and soverign people, and will not have others decide for us."
Frederick, I am with you wherever you decide to go with this. I would also suggest that in addition, or in the alternative, a complimentary or parallel line that I would like to pursue:
I mentioned in a previous post I would like to start a "virtual" Article V Convention in cyberspace as a way of getting TPP bloggers to think about the issues and propose solutions. If we could get one or two people in each state who would volunteer to be "delegates" it would broaden the discussion and perhaps bring together other people who want to amend the Constitution but may have different priorities on which amendment to propose. If we could get the "balanced budget" people, the "repeal the 17th" people, the "term limits" people and all the other "people" proposing single issue amendments to sit down together in a "virtual convention hall," we may already have a critical mass to start working on the state legislators to call an Article V Convention for offering amendments.
I believe the danger of an Article V Convention are exaggerated; I believe if we name the agenda in the call for the Convention, Robert's Rules or Order would require a two-thirds vote to change the agenda. Whatever comes out of the Convention still must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures.
I think that is a pretty good safeguard once people understand that the Supreme Court now amends the Constitution WITH NO SAFEGUARDS whenever FIVE justices agree on what the Constitution should say. Don't believe me? Read Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun's convoluted reasoning in that case is an excellent example of making up law out of thin air. It also is an amendment to the Constitution.
I feverently believe any reforms requiring Congress and the president to follow the Constitution will be futile unless we can rein in the Court, which right now has given itself the power to trump both and to amend the Constitution with a simple majority vote--five justices. If you are interested, I can cite specific cases to prove my case.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Glenn,
Thanks for the support, would you like me to start a "virtual Article V" discussion, or did you have something else in mind?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick,
You can start--I am not a good organizer, and may be a limited blogger. I hope I can be a resource--cheerleader, legal expert, idea man, whatever. I don't get much response when I post original blogs, I usually do much better when I can get into aconveration instead of a sermon (which I tend to do in my original blogs).
- Permalink Reply by on
- No problem Glenn, just make sure you dont forget your "palm palms" LOL.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick - I'm up for the discussion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick
I am honored that you would include me with such a distinguished group. Let us bring freedom and liberty to this country.
Our American Declaration of Independence is the supreme, unamendable moral law of the United States. Declarational law preceded and trumps our supreme, amendable secular law, the Constitution.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/declaration_of_independence_...
- Permalink Reply by on
- My intent in this was to not to do a complete rewrite, but to leave the main body alone and amend the "charges". Naturaly it would not be adressing King George so that would have to change, but mostly I dont want to change anything except the charges. What I am looking for is legitimate complaints, I dont think this should be a completely Obama thing either, i'll give you a example; the tens of thousands put out of work and and forced into starvation while destroying 12% of our gross domestic food production over a 2 inch fish. This is one recent example, but I think we should take this back atleast 100 years due to the events that have led us to where we are today, so I am looking for different examples and ideas from many different times and places.
- Permalink Reply by on
- you got to be a lawyer--english or history teacher,but at any rate i thourghly enjoyed!!! this posting.--also i am convinced that our new supreme court justice(kagan)is just too young to comprehend the english language enough to --go along with what the framers wrote.boy did i enjoy this one.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Robert,
If you read through Glenn Neal's post's, you will find he has great disdain for what the Supreme Court has become, and rightly so. We can all sit and pick apart many justices over the years, and I think Kagan is just the latest in a long line of appointee mistakes. I think very few Supreme Court justices in the last 100 years have any true knowledge of the court or the understanding of the immense responsibility it takes to be a SC justice. Today we see justices hungering for and wielding "power and political clout" based on their own personal opinions and ajenda's, case decisions based on their own feelings of what should be right, not what is constitutional.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick, I don't disagree with anything you have said about the Court and its justices; I don't think Kagan will be much of a factor for a while. She is young, she is a liberal replacing a liberal [John Paul Stevens]. If that makes any difference at all, Stevens, because of his age and experience, commanded more respect from fellow justices.
I think the danger will come if (God forbid) one of the conservative justices dies or steps down while Obama is still president.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Excellent article. Isn't it amazing how politicians have taken the pure intentions of our Constitution and twisted them and taken them out of context to use for powers that were never granted to congress?
- Permalink Reply by on
- An equal amount of blame must be shared by We the People!
Ambitious men will always push the boundaries of their legitimate power, seeing just how much they can get by with. We have to pay attention; we have to keep their power checked. If we don't, our children and grandchildren will curse us for squandering their liberty when there was still time to preserve the greatest country in the world.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If we don't, our children and grandchildren will curse us for squandering their liberty and freedom when there was still time to preserve the greatest country in the world.
I am afraid that it is too late for that we have already squandered our children's future. Perhaps we can save our grand childern.
- Permalink Reply by on
I totally agree. We the People have been asleep at the wheel.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick,
Good post and a spot on subject. My only addition would be that the Progressive courts during the FDR Presidency made many erroneous decisions that due to the questionable adoption of the British Common Law case Law theory. Law School now teach Case Law Theory and down play the role of the Constitution in our courts.
The example is the case you cited where the Supreme court decided that words and meaning can be changed or altered to suit their desires. This is horrible but the results under the Common Law Theory is much worse because England does not have a Constitution they use case law precedent to make decisions on current day suits this is their base of law. America being a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution and does not require case law precedent but it was used anyway. The General Welfare case after the decision above becomes base law - precedent and it then subject to the concept of Satre decisis (settled law) even when this conflicts with the Constitution it prevails and future cases will use the decision instead of the Constitution. They then use one case to give them power over another case all the time moving from one point in law to many other areas - one upon another until our freedoms are just gone.
So it becomes clear why Progressives always change the meaning of words or the name of a cause defeated. Just look at Global cooling, global warming, Climate disasters, new ice age, and others all different names for the same program. So words have meaning and meanings must be from the time period when written.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Agreed Lock,
Personally I think the important issue in regards to the FDR presidency conerning this issue is the coecion of the court which caused these rulings, the court originally ruled 8 out of 10 of the new deal cases as unconstitutional, but after FDR threatened to pack the court, the court ruled in his favor in effort to try to keep the integrity of the court structure in tact, which as we all know has been disaterous.
- Permalink Reply by on
- And people wonder why I say FDR was a disaster of a President and set the nation back 50 years. We are all still paying the price today and every day until we restore the original Constitution ending the 14th, 16th and 17th amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If I remember correctly (its been over 20 years), in high school they preached FDR up like he was some great innovator, and his New Deal was so great. I wonder what kind of mind set kids would have if they were taught the truth about FDR.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes, he was the father of what we now see as the failure of the Constitution and the lack of respect for it's limits on the beast of the federal government. he destroyed the Supreme and the principle of the three party government and the concept of checks and balances. He started the tri-party usurping of the Constitutional power that each had under the Rule - by - Law - they created the Rule - by - Man limits of government we see in use today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I was lucky my Dad who lived during those years knew that he was a snake in the grass.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Progressive courts during the FDR Presidency made many erroneous decisions that due to the questionable adoption of the British Common Law case Law theory."
The Common law predates Roosevelt and predates the Republic. "The common law was received in the American colonies and adopted as the basis of American legal systems after the Revolution in the state and federal constitutions. " (West's Encyclopedia of American Law.) However, the common law is being grossly misused by the United States Supreme Court. Common law can never lawfully override the statutory law made by Congress. Traditionally, common law courts ruled in the "interstices," the tiny spaces between laws made by Parliment or the King. It was intended to fill in the blancks where no law existed. It was useful in solving disputes not anticipated by the lawmakers, and the common law judges knew--and kept within--their limits. The real culprit who changed that was an 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. I submit the Supreme Court of the United States, acting contrary to the Constitution, is the real villain and reform of the federal government cannot be effective without bringing the Supreme Court under constitutional control. The common law is not the problem, it is the Supreme Court's bastardization of the common law that we must deal with.
__________________
Glenn Neal is a retired lawyer and the author of The Second American Revolution: One Way or the Other [A look at dysfunctional government and what we can do to fix it] Flyover Country Press, LLC (2010)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hi Glenn
Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"—was the correct interpretation. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. This no doubt was the authority that government needed to spend tax money on anything and everything.
Jim
- Permalink Reply by on
- How do we let S.C.Justices write law ?.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "How do we let S.C.Justices write law?"
We weren't paying attention. It's kind of like boiling a frog--if you start him out in cold water, and raise the temperature gradually, he feels the temperature going up but he is cooked before he realizes he is in really hot water.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Stare decisis - settled law. The theory of Case Law Precedent make prior case (correct of incorrect) become the new law of the land.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock
And to reverse this trend and return to the original meaning of the Welfare Clause?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Return to the original Constitution and its word meaning as of the time of writing. The true meaning of welfare during the Founders time is completely different than that the Congress and courts usurp. It is that way with the Commerce clause also.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I cannot find in me any regard for a work of Hamilton although I am sure we have gained something of value from him , somewhere. But if we were to take the Constitution as a whole striking the vague General Welfare clause would be job one.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Rhodes,
The biggest issue with Hamilton is his tendancy to run on with a subject, also understanding that he was a lawyer and often argued both sides of a particular argument in his writings, can help to weed through the mess of his work.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick and Rhodes keep in mind the Federalist Papers were written to SELL the Constitution to the citizens and State Legislatures.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Note that regardless that Hamilton had attended the Constitutional Convention and was undoubtedly well aware that the delegates had rejected the idea of granting banking powers to Congress, Hamilton backstabbed the delegates by doing the following. Hamilton later took President Washington behind closed doors, crying to Washington about the "necessary and proper" clause (1.8.18) so that Washington would sign the bill establishing the First National Bank.
- Permalink Reply by on
- In particular Lock, it was to "sell" the costitution to the people of New York, and in so doing, having been written by three of the framers of the Constitution, is the appropriate documentation to be used by the SC when attempting to determine meaning and intent in what the constitution says. I wholeheartedly beleive if you asked most of the supreme court justices today about the federalist papers, they would look like deer in the headlights.
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is interesting. If I remember correctly, it was the NY delegates to the Constitutional Convention who argued the loudest for not delegating banking powers to Congress.
- Permalink Reply by on
- New York has always been a haven for liberal thought, kind of ironic that it is also the most communist, and one of the most broke states in the union. No correlation there, just ask a democrat. LOL
No comments:
Post a Comment