- If interested in digging into the documentary material on ratification
[and you have some cash to spare. Most volumes are $95.00] I have found this material to be invaluable:
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/ratification/
This material is, quite simply, astounding.
I purchased this book based solely on the fact that the author used the DHRC extensively in writing it Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier. I have no regrets about making this purchase.
I would also recommend Madison and Jefferson by Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg
- Permalink Reply by on
The grinning politicians who promise you "fiscal responsibility" with their BBA will actually strip you of the protections of Our Constitution
Why the “Balanced Budget Amendment” is a Hoax - and a Deadly Trap
- Publius HuldahWhat Would We Get From the BBA ?
In plain English, this is what the 10 Sections of the BBA mean [but read it yourself - it’s very short]:Section 1: They won’t spend more than they take in unless they vote to spend more than they take in.Section 2: They won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP unless they vote to spend more than 18% of the GDP.Section 3: The President will write the budget: He will designate the taxes, and what the money will be spent on. He won’t spend more than he decides to tax you for, and he won’t spend more than 18% of the GDP. The GDP is a computation made by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce, an agency under the control of the President. [Do you see? The President controls the agency which computes the number which limits his spending.]Section 4: Congress won’t make a law raising your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes.Section 5: Congress won’t raise the debt limit unless they vote to raise the debt limit.Sections 6 & 7: Congress can waive the above provisions of the BBA (except for Sec. 4 which says they can’t raise your taxes unless they vote to raise your taxes) when there is a declared war or a “military conflict” which they think justifies their waiving the above provisions of the BBA.
Section 8: Courts can’t order your taxes to be raised. [But you can bet your life that this section, together with section 3, will be seen to authorize the President to order that your taxes be raised.]Section 9: I leave this to others to explain. But be assured the President’s minions will define stuff however he wants; make stuff “off-budget” or “on-budget” to fit his agenda.Section 10: Congress can make laws to enforce the BBA, and can rely on numbers provided by the President who is to be given constitutional authority to order tax increases & decide how to spend the money.So! Do you see? You get no benefit from the BBA. But it will cause us irreparable harm.How Would the BBA Cut the Heart Out of Our Constitution?
1. It would Transform Our Constitution From One of Enumerated Spending Powers To One of General (“Unlimited”) Spending Powers.Congress’ powers are enumerated. Thus, the objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds are limited to those listed in the Constitution. Congress has ignored the limitations on its powers for many decades - but at least the limitations are still in the Constitution, to be invoked if We The People ever repent. 2But the BBA, by ignoring the unconstitutional objects of Congress’ spending, and by merely limiting the amount of such spending to 18% of the GDP & the taxes the President assesses, repeals the enumerated powers aspect of our Constitution. Furthermore, if Congress limited its appropriations to its enumerated powers, they could not possibly spend a sum as vast as 18% of the GDP. Thus, the BBA is clear intention to repeal the enumerated powers, and transform the federal government into one of general and unlimited powers.Congress’ idiotic spending is now unlawful & unconstitutional. But with the BBA, it would become lawful & constitutional, as long as the total spending doesn’t exceed the limits (unless they waive the limits). With the BBA, it will become lawful for them to appropriate funds for whatever the President (who will write the budget) says! 32. The BBA Transfers Control of the “Purse” from Congress to the President.The federal government didn’t even have a budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. That “law” purported to grant budget making power (taxes & appropriations) to the President.But the Budget Act of 1921 is unconstitutional: The Constitution places the taxing & appropriations powers squarely in the hands of Congress - not the Executive Branch; and contrary to the beliefs of indoctrinated lawyers, Congress may not “amend” the Constitution by making a law. 4Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 1, grants to Congress the Power to lay and collect Taxes; and Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to Congress the Power to make the appropriations:Accordingly, for most of our history, Congress made appropriations as the need arose; determined the taxes, and kept records of both. [See Bruce Bartlett’s excellent history of the budget process.]Our Framers gave us an elegant system of separated powers, where Congresscommands the purse - not the Executive Branch and not the Judicial Branch! InFederalist No. 78 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton outlines this separation of powers:In Federalist No. 58 (4th para from end) Madison explains why the House alone is granted power to propose taxes (Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 1): To protect The People from overreaching by the other branches of the federal government:Ponder Hamilton’s and Madison’s words. You must understand what they are saying if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. Otherwise, the BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship.Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful.But Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will become a rubber stamp.Now look at this pretty little snare: Section 8 of the proposed BBA says:Our Constitution does not grant to courts the power to “order” tax increases. So why does Sec. 8 of the BBA say they can’t do it?It’s a trap! There is an ancient maxim of legal construction which goes like this: “The Expression of One Thing is the Exclusion of Another”:Why does Sec. 8 of the BBA exclude the President? From this exclusion, one may reasonably infer that the intent of Sec. 8 is to permit the President to order tax increases. If the BBA is ratified, you can be sure that Presidents will claim power under Sec. 8 of the BBA to order tax increases. That inference is strengthened by the fact that Sec. 3 of the BBA transfers constitutional power over the Budget to the President.So! The BBA surrenders the purse to the President! Our Framers understood the danger of having the sword & the purse held by one person. That is why our Constitution provides for Congress to make the decisions on taxes & appropriations; and, as pointed out in Federalist No. 72 (1st para), the President is to apply and disburse “the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature”.With the BBA, Congress’ sole remaining constitutional function over taxing & spending will be to rubberstamp the dictates of the President.3. The BBA grants judicial power over taxing & spending to the federal courts.Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 states: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution.”If the BBA is ratified, it will become an Amendment to the Constitution which is subject to the judicial authority of the federal courts.You say the BBA won’t transfer power over the purse to the President? You say Congress won’t become a mere rubberstamp whose sole remaining function over taxing & appropriations is to enact into law the dictates of the President?Who will decide? Since this would be an issue “arising under the Constitution”, the supreme Court will decide. The Judicial Branch - a branch which Hamilton took care to point out should have no power whatsoever over The Purse.And so five (5) people on the supreme Court will decide an issue which goes to the heart of our Constitution - an issue which the People clamoring for the BBA don’t even know exists. And remember: Our supreme Court is filled with fallen people who looked at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means that women may kill their babies. They looked at the 1st Amendment and said it means that Congress may regulate political speech, and courts may ban Christian speech in the public square, but it givesWestboro “baptists” a “right” to spew their filth & hate at private funerals of dead American heroes.If the BBA is ratified, do you really want five (5) of those judges deciding this issue? 6What is the Solution to The Financial Plight Congress has put us in?
We have 47 Republican U.S. Senators who don’t understand [or do they?] the ramifications of the BBA which some of them (most notably Senators Jim De Mint & Mike Lee) are determined to cram down our throats. Many supposedly conservative pundits are carrying their water. Whether these people are fools or tyrants, you must learn that you can not trust anybody. You must insist that people prove what they say!WE THE PEOPLE must reclaim our glorious Heritage. We must find & support candidates who understand the Constitution, obey it, and agree to work to dismantle the unconstitutional federal apparatus. We can eliminate the trillions of dollars of unconstitutional spending by restoring constitutional government. In an orderly fashion, we can dismantle the multitude of offices and agencies and departments of the last 100 years which harass us and eat out our sustenance.Oh my People! The grinning politicians who promise you “fiscal responsibility” with their BBA will actually strip you of the protections of Our Constitution. Their BBA will legalizea totalitarian dictatorship. Do not be deceived by them - they are leading you astray, and their BBA will destroy us.Oh you Proponents of this thoroughly Evil Scheme: I throw my glove in your face: Show me, if you can, where I am wrong. Or rethink it. PHFull article: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37954
- Permalink Reply by on
- If you think a balanced budget amendment does any good to protect the citizens - go to California and tell me how it saved them from excess taxes and borrowing/spending. check off budget items in the USA national budget - same with the States that have them they just use new creative accounting to distort the issue of balanced.It just gives cover to the Political class - they will always cut the things like street lights, parks, schools, hospitals, medical treatments, police and fire, street and highway maintenance. Only cut what hurts the middle class while they can continue to pay off the Unions and other factions that elect them. IMO it is just BS.
- Permalink Reply by on
- the Newt presented but did not pursue. He failed to address the Constitutional authority used to pass laws. Just as the current crops of B@@@ S@@@@@@ - The very first bill they said here is the Constitutional authority - Necessary and Proper clause, General Welfare, Commerce clause, I never read anywhere in any of those that authorized the government to make welfare payments - food stamps - medicaid - College Grants - research grants - foreign aid - funding for the UN.Oh well, just the same old S@@@ - they lie and we are expected to say oh they are doing such a good job for all the people. Well this old guy is not going there anymore - article I section 8 and no more.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Oh that it was that simple - first we must "TEACH THEM" the Constitution as they believe what they have been told by the Law Professors and the Usurping Justices. They need to be re-educated with what the Constitution actually says not what has been rewritten and twisted like the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare statement. We must keep in mind that the Preamble of the Constitution is not the law it is to introduce the laws.
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Constitutional Topic: The Preamble
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 The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution — the "why" of the document.
The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.The newly minted document began with a grand flourish &mdash the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.We the People of the United StatesThe Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.in Order to form a more perfect UnionThe Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.establish JusticeInjustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.insure domestic TranquilityOne of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.provide for the common defenceThe new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.promote the general WelfareThis, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our PosterityHand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of AmericaThe final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).Article I follows the above and that is the first part of the Constitution and its limits on government. IMO the Preamble has no force of law but is introductory to the law of the land and the establishment of the RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT RULE - BY - MAN that a democracy would use.
- Permalink Reply by on
- A balance budget amendment is worse than smoke and mirrors - it is just plain old deception in plane view. Look at California - they had a balanced budget requirement did it save them from borrow- spend - raise taxes and go broke - NOOOOOOO sir for they are gone. The Political class hides behind creative borrowing - off budget items - unrecognized liabilities like retirements that are unfunded.The proper action is to revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments returning all except the Article I section 8 enumerated powers back to the States and to the people and the budget problems will be gone forever. Each State can then deal with the needs of their citizens. Put SCOTUS back into the Article III limits while we are at it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ohio Appeals Court holds ObamacareUnder another thread someone asked “shouldn’t we be focusing on why the decision violates our constitutionally limited system of government”. My response is a resounding NO.I’ve been on this site for quite a while now and it seems a great many of us understand the why of the situation pretty well to varying degrees. You know I love history and political theory but there is a time to put learning to use.Concerning this ruling I will be watching for and focusing on what we’re going to do when the SCOTUS rules Obamacare constitutional or more accurately declines to rule it unconstitutional. Some of the dissent included in the current ruling hints at the outcome.“The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances… [are] the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its [the commerce clause] abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often they solely, in all representative governments.”“Today’s debate about the individual mandate is… no less essential to the appropriate role of the National Government and no less capable of political resolution. Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples’ political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility.”I do try (not always successfully) to limit my speculative forays concerning the outcome of current events but in this case I will take exception my own rule.We should be planning what we will do when the court refuses to do the “hard work” this case calls for and throws the ball back to into our court, the election process.“To the fatalistic view that Congress will always prevail and courts should step back and let the people, if offended, speak through their political representatives, I say that “courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”“[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”“This is the “hard work” Justice O’Connor referred to in her dissent in Raich. It is hard work in part because it can place a federal court in the position of choosing between powerful competing political ideologies with the risk that the court’s judgment may be branded as political.” We must not lose sight of the fact however that the Constitution we interpret and apply itself embodies a resolution of powerful competing political ideologies, including the extent of the power of the federal government”My bet is the SCOTUS will “lose sight” just as the so called judges rendering this decision have. Of all the “issues” we will fight and perhaps loose, we simply cannot IMO afford to loose this fight.
- Permalink Reply by on
- “The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances… [are] the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its [the commerce clause] abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often they solely, in all representative governments.”I agree with some distinct exceptions to voting as a remedy.On a fundamental issue such as the Obamacare intrusion on individual AND States authority vs central government authority, SCOTUS is where the case belongs. I am not implying that SCOTUS is the final word.When the People are not represented by Congress, those non-representative representatives can be ousted in a timely manner. However, the States are not properly represented IMO (the 17thA) and there is no effective way for the States to remedy a mis-representation in Congress. Even at that, the People must wait 6 long years before the opportunity to recall a rogue Senator via elections. In the case of Obamacare, the damage is too immediate to wait for that occurance/remedy.When Only voting for elected officials is available as a remedy, the majority rules and mob mentality will trounce the rights of the minority in direct conflict with the Original Argument. In addition, when an environment exists where lobbyists and "special" interests have undue influence on elected officials, the People's voice is muted. In this regard the tax code is the culprit and the solution IMO. If taxes were levied evenly on individuals and Corporations, no exceptions, no exemptions, rather than progressively and selectively, the interests of lobbyists would be subdued greatly.So, although on a 'day to day' basis the people controlling Congress in regard to what is in the general Welfare or not, may be affected by voting, it is in no way a remedy in of itself.IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- The issue of importance is this appeals court has issued findings that the "COMMERCE CLAUSE" has no limits and Congress can tell us to do what ever they decide has crossed a state boundary? They can Regulate with out limits even removing our "rights" such as choice. It appears tome that this conflicts with several Religions that do not believe in medical intervention - will they be forced to buy insurance or be fined?The Virginia case is going to be the bid daddy of the Obamacare suits - 26 States are involved and this will place the SCOTUS under tremendous pressure like they have not seen since FDR.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think you’re correct the mandate would create a conflict for some religious sects. Which is why Congress included exceptions for religious organizations within the bill (yeah God help me I read it, well half of it anyway). I think you're right again the Virginia case will be the one to make it to the SCOTUS and the pressure will be great.When reading several of the related cases I could see the argument made many times for the judiciary to effectively wimp out of ruling and throwing issues back to the legislature. So it was no surprise to see the wimp out argument included in this ruling and why I chose to highlight it.All my instincts tell me as well the Court won’t take responsibility for this, it’s too “risk(y)”. They are going to leave it to the legislature and in effect leave it to us.Atlas’s legitimately observes the election process take a horribly long time, I agree. On that point, I can only say if it were in my power there would be plans being laid today to have not hundreds of thousands but millions of us in DC ready to surround the Court and Congress.This law and case precedent cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. This is the equivalent of FDR’s new deal legislation as you suggest. This issue IMHO will define America’s future for the next one hundred years. Mark my word our children’s children will study what we do, or don’t do here.
- Permalink Reply by on
- While I have not spent a great deal of time on the litigation except to read the first Judges findings on the Virginia case - His name is Judge RogerVinson and he laid out a very complete well researched and the case law base is very supportive of his findings. He even included a video debate between link below - Obamacare.
Professor John Eastman, Erwin Chemerinsky - Law school Deans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqsk [wheat and weed and Obamacare]*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law "must be declared void." Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.
---
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce . . . among the several States," and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare's "individual mandate," which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it's justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.
How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.IMO - the 26 States are pursuing Nullification under the 10th amendment powers. So, the war is being fought on many fronts. The last option will be the 38 States using Article V to revoke the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments and pushing the three branches of government back under the limits of the original Constitution and the meaning of the words at the time of the Founder and Framers. This can and will be the last best choice short of rebellion of the people ending the Constitution and forming a new nation? No good options IMO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is a link to a good article on the Obamacare 6th district appeals court findings?
No comments:
Post a Comment