- We tend to forget that Reagan went after the CENTER LEFT on both coasts and the lake States. He went after blue collar Catholic Democrats - he was not selling conservative on nothing - he was selling visions of more freedom, smaller less intrusive Fed Gov, lower taxes, turn free enterprise solutions loose and Restore States rights.That is why a group of us formed the Article V project to Restore Liberty - it is now huge and it is being used by schools, Universities, Government elected officials, State legislatures, many young people are finding the truth in real History. Take a look it is free, no membership, no ads, no donations accepted, no cookies, no tracking - just thousands of free books, videos, pdf files, links, ebooks, articles by many Patriots.A place to learn the truth about our Constitution and our actual history.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Property
James Madison
March 29, 1792
[Madison wrote this newspaper article to explain the relationship
between property rights and other natural rights. — TGW]
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one
man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in
exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a
man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every
one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called
his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free
communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the
profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his
person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice
of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be
equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly
respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or
his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an
opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that
which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term
Browse our archive of
original historical
documents on the
themes of this book:
- Founding Principles
- Slavery
- Property Rights
- Women and the Right
to Vote
- Women and the Family
- Was the Founding
Undemocratic? The
Property Requirement for
Voting
- Poverty and Welfare
- Immigration and the
Moral Conditions of
Citizenship
- Afterword: Liberals and
Conservatives Abandon
the Principles of the
Founding
.......................................
Home > Document Library > Property Rights > Propertyparticularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is
a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is
his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just
securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government
which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals,
does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their
opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a
more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a
man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or
taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property;
other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that,
being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his
castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact
faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more
sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for
which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original
conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal
liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the
service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang,
would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under
appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where
arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its
citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their
occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general
sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so
called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of
linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order
to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the
manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the
oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the
manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under
which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward
another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries
of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the
keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to
labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another
spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing
man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him,
in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his
necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the
inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly
even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet
directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions,
their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which
indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor
that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of
time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the
influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such agovernment is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to
wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of
property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that
most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in
violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other
governments.
[From Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, ed., The Founders’
Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 1:598-99.]
- Permalink Reply by on
Constitutional Topic: Federalism
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Federalism. Federalism is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, but federalism is one of the many concepts that the Constitution embodies.
There are three major types of government in the place in the world today. The most prevalent is the unitary system. In a unitary system, power is held at the national level, with very little power being held in political subdivisions, such as provinces, counties, parishes, or towns. The least common is the confederation. Confederations are unions of equal states, with some power being held at the national level. Generally, it has been found that conflicting interests lead to the break-down of confederations.The third major system is the federal system. In a federal system, the national government holds significant power, but the smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. The United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are examples of federal systems.Is any one of these better than the other? That is a matter of opinion. Suffice it to say that each has its positives and negatives, and as such, the choice for which to use in any particular nation depends on the nation, its people, its existing political subdivisions. The United States was a series of colonies under the British unitary system; upon the execution of the Revolution, the United States became a confederation under the Articles of Confederation; and when that system proved unsuccessful, it was transformed into a federal system by the Constitution.Federal systems are chosen for a number of reasons. The size of the nation might be one concern; the diversity of the political subdivisions might be another. The United States combines a bit of both: the size of the continental United States made a unitary system unwieldy, and the diverse interests of the states made confederation impossible. Nations like Switzerland have a population split by language, and despite its small size, found federalism to be a better choice than the others. China, being an extremely large and extremely diverse nation, finds the unitary system more suited to its political ideology. However, communism does not require a unitary system: the former USSR was a federation, at least in its internal structure.Federalism in the United States has evolved quite a bit since it was first implemented in 1787. In that time, two major kinds of federalism have dominated political theory.The first, dual federalism, holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted very narrowly, such as the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such. In this case, there is a very large group of powers belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.The second, cooperative federalism, asserts that the national government is supreme over the states, and the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause have entirely different meaning. A good illustration of the wide interpretation of these parts of the Constitution is exemplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause's other common name: the Elastic Clause.Dual federalism is not completely dead, but for the most part, the United States' branches of government operate under the presumption of a cooperative federalism. The shift from dual to cooperative was a slow one, but it was steady.One of the earliest examples of a shift was in the Supreme Court's Gibbons v. Ogden decision, which ruled in 1824 that Congress's right to regulate commerce under the Commerce Clause could be "exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than those prescribed in the constitution..." The Court did not expand the powers of the national government much over the next century. But in the 1930's, a wave of feeling of social injustice began to sweep the nation as the Depression began. Federal laws concerning labor, civil rights, and civil liberties began to take on a new priority. National laws, and amendments to the Constitution, have taken away many powers from the states, such as the ability to significantly restrict voting rights or the ability to draw political districts at the whim of political party bosses.Some advocate a return to an emphasis on dual federalism as a returning of power to a government closer to the people, and hence under better popular control. There are many problems with this, however, as many states found in the Reagan era. President Reagan was a strong advocate of states rights, and wanted to return many of the powers taken up by the federal government to the states. But in many cases, this created more bureaucracy, as each of the 50 states had to establish offices to administer programs the federal government handed over. Worse, the transition was often unfunded, meaning that the costs of theprograms were shifted to the states, but federal taxes were not reduced accordingly, leading to a higher tax burden on the people as states raised taxes to fund the programs. Worse, when federal taxes were cut, federal aid to the states that did exist was cut as well.But despite the appeal of cooperative federalism, there is an on-going appeal to a degree of dual federalism. The failure of President Bill Clinton's national health care initiatives is a perfect example of an area of politics that the people feel is best held more closely, in spite of some of the benefits of a national system.
Regardless of the kind of federalism current the Constitution does provide some very specific powers to both the states and the federal government. These powers are traditionally divided into three categories.Reserved powers are those that have been reserved specifically for the states or are of a traditionally state scope. These consist mostly of police powers, such as providing fire andpolice protection, establishment of health regulations, licensing, and education.Granted powers, also known as express, enumerated, implied, delegated, and inherent powers, are those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8, such as the power to coin money, to raise an army and navy, to provide for patent and copyright protections, to establish a post office, and to make treaties and war with other nations. An express, delegated, or enumerated power is one specifically listed; an implied or inherent power is one that exists to carry out an express or enumerated power. For example, Congress can raise an army; this implies the ability to specify regulations concerning who can join the army.Concurrent powers are those held to some extent by both the federal and state governments. Both, for example, have taxation power, the ability to construct and maintain roads, and other spending for the general welfare.Many things are denied of both or either levels of government. States, for example, have no authority to coin money or wage war. Neither may pass a bill of attainder or any ex post facto law. Much of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to both states and the federal government, while all of the Bill of Rights applies restrictions to the federal government. Note that the Bill of Rights originally had no effect of restriction on the states, but judicial interpretation of the14th Amendment's due process clause has incorporated much of the upholding of civil rights to the states.
As usual, the Internet has a wealth of information about lots of topics, including federalism. Here are just a few:- Federal Relations from the National Governor's Association
- The Federalist Society
- Council of State Governments
- History of U.S. Federalism
- Federalism from Wikipedia
- Permalink Reply by on
- Easy fix . . Restore States rights and powers and force DC back under the LIMITS of Article I section 8 enumerated powers - no more usurping. This project is designed to take away the unlimited money and power from DC - they will no longer have money to bribe voting blocks and even State and local governments.Yes they bought us with our own tax dollars and now we are all economic SLAVES many forced to live in ghettos forever. Take our freedoms and liberties back . . make DC small, weak and LIMITED like the Founder designed and here is how.I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.
- Permalink Reply by on
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"-- James Madison"We continue to claim that nobody is supposed to ignore the law.But we must give some credit to those who know it."-- Georges RipertSource: Le Déclin du Droit. Etude sur la législation contemporaine (Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1949), p. 165"Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add... artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government."-- Andrew Jackson(1767-1845) 7th US President
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop,free to work, free to trade where I choose,free to choose my own teachers,free to follow the religion of my fathers,free to talk, think and act for myself --and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."-- Chief Joseph
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Let me submit for your consideration these six contradictions of socialism in the United States of America:
1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
That pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "No man has a natural right to commit aggressionon the equal rights of another, andthis is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."-- Thomas Jefferson
No comments:
Post a Comment