- The reply to this quote are very interesting and educational IMHO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hamilton proposed a new government based on a model he and the other delegates knew well, perhaps all too well: that of the British monarchy and parliament.Hamilton advocated virtually doing away with state sovereignty, noting that as long as there was power to be had in the states, people would aspire to acquire that power, to the detriment of the nation as a whole. His plan featured:
- A bicameral legislature
- The lower house, the Assembly, was elected by the people for three year terms
- The upper house, the Senate, elected by electors chosen by the people, and with a life-term of service
- An executive called the Governor, elected by electors and with a life-term of service
- The Governor had an absolute veto over bills
- A judiciary, with life-terms of service
- State governors appointed by the national legislature
- National veto power over any state legislation
Hamilton reported his plan to the Convention onJune 18, 1787.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The erroneous view that we must look first (and perhaps exclusively) to government for the solutions to problems. Politicians encourage that illusion since they want citizens to regard themselves as impotent while the State possesses almost limitless capabilities or so they would want us to believe.When a social problem arises, politicians almost never say, “The government should do nothing about that; it’s a problem that should be dealt with by the voluntary sector.” Saying that would be almost suicidal in a nation caught in the grip of the illusion of government preeminence. Instead, politicians seldom miss an opportunity to show their great “concern” by introducing new legislation they claim will take care of everything, from the harm supposedly done by incandescent light bulbs to the drug trade.It is the near continuous call to the government to do something about every misfortune that people face in their lives that has driven the country to near bankruptcy this is why the government is out of control. Our politicians use every crisis to develop cures that grant them more and more power.Our Constitution was written to limit the federal government for this very reason. The FF knew that it is the natural order of government to grow and in doing so it will seize the power to use force on whatever is opposing their will.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Go to this site and click on the founders each name will provide you some real incite to the founders thinking and why.
- Permalink Reply by on
- He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
Aristotle
Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life.
Aristotle
All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince.
Plato
I do not know whether there are gods, but there ought to be.
Diogenes
It is the privilege of the gods to want nothing, and of godlike men to want little.
Diogenes
It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself.
Epicurus
It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such a one as is unworthy of him; for the one is only belief - the other contempt.
Plutarch
Here is a modern one to close with and show that there is a continuity in the belief in the natural rights that man has come from a Creator?Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
C. S. Lewis
- Permalink Reply by on
- Keep in mind that Locke did not create all those thoughts he studied the Masters of Philosophy and the histories of societies then he weaved the fabric of NATURAL LAW for it is a logical extension of the ancient tribal customs to the now recognized modern concepts of rights and origins of freedoms.I would envision Locke debating the other great minds of his time and in my opinion some of them would be quite heated. Complex realities are developed over the eons and not at one sitting.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Federalist 17“It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”When the Constitution was written the first sentence it should have made it apparent that it was the intention of the National Government to strip the States of their sovereign rights as States . It was apparent to the Anti- Federalist that there was a strong danger that our Constitution would lead to Mob rule to a democracy instead of a Representative Republic.``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''It should have stated "We the States of the United States in Order to form'-------
- Permalink Reply by on
- I’m curious to know if Hamilton believed there was a threat to state sovereignty or if he cared. He understood the corrupting influence of power. The drive of power for powers sake and the inherent jealousy and ambitions to abuse the common man in pursuit of power. Yet he seems devoid of understanding that when the Federal Government is left to determine the constitutionality of any law against a sovereign state through the federal governments own federal courts that your only asking for trouble. The final arbiter of constitutional law is the Supreme Court. Just a bunch of federal “lawyers” sitting around deciding what they believe is write or wrong.When you consider the Constitution that he proposed at the convention and it was his forceful opinions that was principal in the writing the Constitution that we have today is is no wonder that there has been an continuous erosion of the Rights of the State.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The American people of the 21st century are too ignorant of the long-term impact of their ill-considered public policy desires. Our rights of private property will always be sacrificed on the altar of democracy. If the masses can confiscate the wealth of the few through the use of government under the color of “social justice,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” and “shared responsibility,” they will.The senate was supposed to be populated with disinterested statesmen of integrity and honor–closer to Franklin than Franken. The civic knowledge landscape of the American electorate and the elected is not a pretty picture. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s (www.isi.org) reports for the last few years present a dismal, horrifying dumbing down of Americans. We’ve gotten to the point where someone like me, just a common man, could now be seen as an elitist.
Just give the people their bread and circuses (panem et circenses) In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace.The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel).and the individual rights and liberties of others can be trampled without notice or concern to the long-term detriment of all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.
Hugo Black
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are
naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States,
277 US 479 (1928)
- Permalink Reply by on
- You are like me in that one single word is twisted and forged into a new paradigm by those that want to hold power over the people. However let us look at the words:We the people [all of the Americans from the various individual States] of the "UNITED" States [meaning they have agreed to unite the Various States under these conditions] in order to FORM a more perfect Union [dissolving the Confederation] . . . . . . . . .Now under these circumstances the People through their fiduciary [The ratifiers] gave instructions for the Various State to Unite under this new contract that the PEOPLE have given the government to form under and to operate under it's words, statements, clauses, and direct instructions and limits on all levels of government and its branches. The People maintained the final power over both Federal and State governments and it was their responsibly to enforce the Constitution upon the governments.We are now living under a triple usurpation - a trifecta of law breakers, the Executive declaring wars, the Legislatures forcing laws upon the States and the people outside of the Article I section 8 limits, the SCOTUS approving of the wanton destruction of the fabric of the Constitution by using clauses to supersede the direct items they were to apply toward. clearly the courts are outside the Article III limits of the powers of the court but they will not be punished as they have expanded the powers of the other two branches so now we have mutual usurpation. Many of the Founders warned this would occur and instructed the States to protect the people and if necessary for the people to rebel even with force of arms to restore the Constitution.And my friends, I believe we are coming to the end of days of our Republic if the States nullifying is not upheld by SCOTUS. The last attempt at peaceful restoration would be the States and 38 of them revoking the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments while reinforcing the limits on the courts through a new amendment.Thank you for reading this long post.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Written on September 19, 2011 by
“The Tenth Amendment is a Bunch of Baloney”
MSNBC’s David Shuster insists the “general welfare” clause in Article 1 of the Constitution “unambiguously authorizes” social welfare spending like “social security, Medicare, veterans’ care, etc.” Yeah, right. This is the same guy who claims “the Tenth Amendment is a bunch of baloney.” You can hear Shuster’s constitutional expertise here. The Tenth Amendment is very clear:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Now here’s the “general welfare” provision in Article I, section 8:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;We are to believe, following Shuster, that the Founders at the direction of the states gaveunlimited power to the Federal government when the states were suspicious and reluctant to give even a little authority to a national governing body. In addition to the body of enumerated powers in the body of the Constitution, the states insisted on an added Bill of Rights that included the Tenth Amendment that defined the limited authority of the Federal government. James J. Kilpatrick is correct when he writes, “And so long as the Tenth Amendment remains a part of the Constitution, it is elementary that it must be given full meaning — that the intention of its framers must be acknowledged and respected. Plainly, the intention of the Tenth Amendment was to restrict the Federal government—to hold it within the strict boundaries of the delegated powers.”[1] Shuster is more closely aligned with the government of Hugo Chavez than the United States Constitution.A careful reader will note that “general welfare” did not mean aid to some at the expense of others, as James Madison was quick to point out in Federalist 41: “But what color can the objection have [that the phrase ‘general welfare’ is not specified by particulars], when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? . . . Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars . . . .”[2]In the entire list that follows the semicolon, there is nothing that even remotely resembles the social welfare programs promoted by people like Schuster. Following modern-day proponent’s of General Welfare, the national government has unlimited authority to do anything it defines as General Welfare. This is impossible. Madison points out that the phrase is found in the Articles of Confederation, and it has a particular meaning:Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.You can see by how “general welfare” is used to mean what applies to everyone generally and has nothing to do with wealth redistribution which a national healthcare care program would be. You can find similar uses of “general welfare” in Articles VIII and IX. Madison continues:Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!The modem concept of general welfare is most often defined in terms of wealth redistribution where some members of society (“the rich”) are taxed heavily in order to benefit the “welfare” of others (“the poor”). General welfare, according to the Constitution, means welfare that benefits everybody more or less equally. This can be clearly seen in providing “for the common Defense.” Taxes collected to defend the nation benefit everybody generally. Taxing some people so other people can have decent housing or an education or healthcare is not general welfare; it’s particular welfare.Notes:- James Jackson Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia(Chicago: Henry Regnery Com., 1957), 47. [↩]
- The Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by The ... No. 41 (January 19, 1788). [↩]
No comments:
Post a Comment