|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Conspiracy Theory Declaration of Independence from the Constitution-Ignoring Federal Government|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
The People's Declaration of Independence from the Constitution-Ignoring Federal Government
Here's the problem with FDR's big, unconstitutional federal government that we have reluctantly inherited, and how to resolve it. The main problem with our federal government is actually not the government but the people. The problem with the people is that ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic. Widespread constitutional ignorance is evidenced by the following links. The consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance is that the people are impotent to stop ongoing abuses of federal government power, particularly by Congress, the USSC and judges in general. Let's examine how serious abuses of legislative and judicial federal powers got started as a consequence of widespread ignorance of the law of the land when FDR was President. With respect to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending by Congress, although FDR's intention to feed hungry Americans was commendable, he blissfully ignored that his constitutionally haphazard approach to starting his New Deal programs would have catastrophic consequences. To understand why, consider the following. The Founders had made it clear in the Constitution that federal government powers must not only be enumerated in the Constitution, but that federal spending is reasonably limited to such powers.
As noted by Clause 18, the other items listed in Sec. 8 of Article I are good examples of enumerated, spending-related powers. The hurdle that FDR faced with respect to establishing his New Deal programs was that such federal government responsibilities had never been vested to it by the Constitution. Indeed, because of the Constitution's silence concerning the kind of programs that FDR wanted to implement, the 10th A. automatically reserved government power to administer such programs to the states, not the federal government.
So in order for FDR to be able to provide constitutionally authorized federal assistance for people through his proposed spending programs, he first needed to rally the states to exercise their Article V power to amend the Constitution to include his programs. Once this was done, Congress would have the justification to lay taxes to administer them. Instead, FDR unthinkingly created a situation which fostered a constitutional disaster, a national disaster arguably comparable to the Civil War. As if FDR didn't understand the Founder's requirement for constitutionally enumerated federal powers, he strong-armed the USSC to essentially ignore the Founder's division of federal and state government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment. He did so so that the USSC could give the green light to his constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs. FDR then turned his head while the USSC began its tradition of sweeping 10th A. protected state powers under the carpet, a tradition which persists to this day. Continued in next post... ( skip to Supreme Court corruption ) This message has been edited. Last edited by: TenthAmendment, |
||
|
|
Member |
...Continued from previous post.
The immediate consequence of constitutional flunky FDR's misguided politics is that he unwittingly gave Congress the bogus license to use his wide, politically correct interpretation of the general welfare clause as the "constitutional" basis to justify his New Deal programs.
Considering that we are all now unfortunately expert witnesses to this, every one of us can testify that Congress has continued to use FDR's "profound insight" into the general welfare clause as a constitutionally unchecked excuse to party the taxpayer's dollars away. But in Congress's "defense," I will also say that members of Congress are not necessarily crooks where the routine practice of earmark funding is concerned. Getting back to the main problem indicated by this essay, we shouldn't be surprised that there are members of Congress who are as ignorant of constitutional federal spending restraints as the people who voted them into office, regardless of any Ivy League schooling. Getting back to FDR, with the 10th A. politically repealed, FDR and Congress began using the general welfare clause as an excuse to bypass the Article V power of the people to amend the Constitution to formally delegate spending-related powers to the federal government. In other words, thanks to FDR's folly, the federal government has, for many decades, been creating its own powers independently of the will of the Article V majority by simply inventing new ways to spend taxpayer's money in the name of "good" intentions. Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson comes to our rescue with respect to clarifying the Founders' forgotten intentions for constitutionally limited federal spending. Jefferson had noted that regardless that the federal government has the power to lay taxes, the good intentions of the president or federal lawmakers, FDR's intentions for his New Deal programs for example, are no substitute for constitutionally enumerated federal powers which reasonably direct how our tax dollars should be spent.
In fact, to emphasize the constitutional illegitimacy of federal spending programs like Social Security and Medicare, consider that Jefferson had also noted that the Founders had trusted the states, not the federal government, with the care of the people.
Continued in next post... ( skip to conclusion ) This message has been edited. Last edited by: TenthAmendment, |
|||
|
|
Member |
...Continued from previous post.
But FDR's ignoring of constitutional spending restraints on the federal government was only the beginning of big-government problems. After the USSC wrongly turned its head to Congress's exercising of non-existant federal government powers, crooked justices, ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution, began to use FDR's license to ignore the 10th Amendment for their own self-serving purposes. Justices front-ending special interest agendas began using FDR's bogus license as their basis to deny state powers, legislating special-interest agendas from the bench. They ignored state powers with perverted interpretations of the 1st and 14th Amendments, unlawfully limiting our religious freedoms, for example. Such abuses of judicial power have resulted in a disastrous erosion of traditional family values. In fact, let's examine how FDR's 10th-A. ignoring establishment of his New Deal federal spending programs ultimately led to the USSC's scandalous, 10th A.-ignoring legalization of abortion. To begin with, since the federal Constitution says nothing about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to address abortion to the state governments. So what happened to the 10th A. when the Court decided Roe v. Wade? Indeed, the Roe v. Wade opinion doesn't mention the 10th A. protected powers of the states (corrections welcome). In order to better understand what happened to the 10th A., let's first examine how majority justices had continued to sweep 10th A. protected state powers under the carpet in previous, state-power related cases. Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.
The problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.
Given that Justice Roberts' interpretation of how the 14th A. affects state powers flies in the face of Bingham's clearly stated limits for that amendment, is it any wonder that 10th A. protected state powers were ultimately compromised when the USSC started taking on cases which tested the 10th A. against FDR's broad interpretation of the general welfare clause? And after Justice Roberts got finished using FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to misrepresent Bingham's intentions for the 14th A., Justice Black, a "former" Klansman and FDR-nominated justice, used FDR's license to misrepresent the ideas of Thomas Jefferson concerning c&s separation. Indeed, despite that Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation," actually Black's wall, somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.
So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work. Are we having fun yet? :^) Regarding Black's special-interest shenanigans, consider that Justice Black was not only a Roman Catholic-despising Baptist, but also that certain Baptists regard Matthew 22:21 as God's call for absolute c&s separation, a 10th A.-ignoring interpretation of that passage. So Black was seemingly happy to twist the Founder's intention for the establishment clause to stop Catholic religious exercises in public schools, even if it meant stopping Protestant religious exercise from being practiced too. If this was the case, then Black wrongly put his personal beliefs ahead of his oath to defend the Constitution as evidenced by his misrepresentation of Jefferson's ideas concerning c&s separation. So based on Jefferson's and Bingham's authoritative understandings of the 10th and 14th Amendments respectively, the states have the constitutional power (10th A.) to authorize public schools to lead non-mandatory (14th A.) classroom discussions on the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and ID, as examples, regardless that atheists, separatists, secular judges and the MSM are misleading the people to think that doing such things in public schools is unconstitutional. As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues (corrections welcome). Corrupt, secular-minded justices evidently regarded the religious aspect of such powers as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to. In fact, to my knowledge, with the exception of Jones v. Opelika, 1942, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs are the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state-power related Court opinions. Again, it's no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion contains no reference to the 10th Amendment. About Roe v. Wade... To begin with, given that the USSC thought that it had the license to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter help justify its scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, surely the Court should have used Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to help justify finding the rights of unborn children in the 9th Amendment - where it found abortion rights.
After all, Jefferson could just as easily have written that all men are born equal. Instead, Jefferson evidently reflected the beliefs of the signers of the DoI that God-given rights start from the moment of conception. And since we're questioning non-enumerated 9th A. rights, not only did the USSC fail to weigh the 9th A. protected right to life for unborn children against the right to have an abortion, the Court also "overlooked" the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father! But there's another problem with the USSC's application of the 9th A. via the 14th A. to abortion. When John Bingham officially discussed the 14th A. after it had been ratified, he clarified that the 14th A. applied only to constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities. In fact, regardless that the USSC used the 9th A. as a wild card to find abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, note that Bingham ignored the 9th A. when he read examples of constitutional statues containing explicit privileges and immunities which the 14th A. applied to the states, reading only the first eight amendments. So by relying on the 9th A. to find non-enumerated abortion rights in the Constitution, the USSC scandalously ignored that the 14th A. was meant to apply only enumerated privileges and immunities to the states. See Bingham's reading of the first eight amendments, the 9th A. omitted, in his discussion of the limits of the ratified 14th A. in the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. The truth of the matter is that the USSC's 9th A. right to an abortion owes its existance to the politically correct abuse of judicial power as opposed to being properly enumerated in the Constitution by the people exercising their Article V powers. Indeed, the 9th A. refers to rights retained by the people, not to barbaric "rights" retained by renegade, special-interest justices. Jefferson had expressed his concern about such abuses of power.
And speaking of federal and state government leaders who, again, are as constitutionally ignorant as the people who voted them into office, given that the Article V majority of states had the power to regulate abortion when the Court decided Roe v. Wade against the states, then why didn't the states override Roe v. Wade with a constitutional amendment? What a mess! :^( Continued in next post... This message has been edited. Last edited by: TenthAmendment, |
|||
|
|
Member |
...Continued from previous post.
Again, FDR's 10th A.-ignoring establishment of New Deal federal spending programs set off a chain-reaction of Court decisions by special-interest, life-hating, state power-ignoring justices which continue to weaken state powers and traditional family values to this day. Reflecting back on Jefferson's concern about judges who usurp legislative power, let's also keep on our guard for the following situation. When the USSC, in deciding a case, claims that a given issue is constitutional or unconstitutional when, in fact, the issue has not been reasonably addressed by lawmakers in the Constitution and its history, so-called abortion rights being a good example, the people shouldn't overlook the possibility that the USSC is wrongly legislating special-interest agendas from the bench. Again, we need to be on our guard for such situtations so that the USSC doesn't slip any more special-interest perversions of the Constitution by us. The bottom line is that the people need to reconnect with the Founder's division of federal and state government powers, particularly where unnecessary federal taxation and the federal government's sticking of its big nose into 10th A. protected state affairs is concerned. Putting an immediate halt to federal interference with state power to protect traditional family values should be a top priority where the disasterous erosion of traditional family values is concerned. The people need to get in the faces of judges, demanding that they start upholding their oaths to respect state powers - or get off the bench. The people also need to get in the faces of members of Congress, demanding a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal spending while appropriately lowering federal taxes - or get out of DC. Lincoln put it this way.
Remember, wherever the Article V majority goes, there they are. SDG This message has been edited. Last edited by: TenthAmendment, |
|||
|
Member |
First of all, is this your essay or a cut and paste from another source?
Secondly, big brother pays the bills. States will do what they must to get that paycheck for road constuction, schools, grants, medicare, etc... Most people can care less is thier elected officials are bypassing constitutional law. |
|||
|
|
Member |
The essay includes many excerpts from historical materials including words from Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Bingham and USSC case opinions.
You are ignoring that the only reason that Big Brother is paying the bills in the first place is because Big Brother is laying constitutionally unjustifiable taxes on the people. Again, Big Brother needs to put an immediate stop constitutionally unjustifiable federal spending and appropriately reduce federal taxes. Then the states will then have more money to spend in ways that are best for a given state. Also, regarding your idea, if I understand you correctly, that the people couldn't care less that government leaders are walking all over their rights, where are you coming from? Not only are you ignoring that the people just "love" to pay federal taxes, you're also ignoring ongoing social strife. You're ignoring strife relate to abortion and the right to discuss creationism in public schools, as examples. Ben Stein's "Expelled" is an excellent example reflecting social unrest concerning creationism discussions being unconstitutionally prohibited in public schools. Again, as a consequence of widespread constitutional ignorance, including ignorant government leaders, the people are powerless to stop the feds from walking all over their freedoms. |
|||
|
Member |
Excellant post TenthAmendment, and I must say you have supported your position well. Also, I agree, the federal government has, for a long time exceeded the limits imposed on it by the Constitution in the name of "for the good of the people" despite the fact that the care of the people has, untill relatively recently been understood to be a responsibility of the people themselves and the states. My question is this, what can we do to end this trend when the political arena has been placed in what is effectively a lockdown by the two major parties, who act in their own interest and in the interest of those who can afford to funnel enough money to sway those parties, without resorting to American Revolution II...
Take for example Alabama, a democrat or republican only needs, if memory serves, 5000 signatures on a petition to be included on a ballot, whereas a "third party" must present a petition containing the signatures of 3% of the qualified voters based on the number of voters who participated in the last general election, with the petition presented prior to the date of the primary. Now that 3% would come to some 40000+ signatures, which is it seems to me grossly unfair, but, in blatant disregard to the desires of the people, members of both major parties at the state level have failed to amend or remove the law to provide equitable treatment for "third parties" or independant persons seeking office. To reiterate, how can we fix this at the state levels and the national levels when the two major parties have a virtual deadlock on the process? |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I get a real laugh out of you quoting Jefferson, considering his own bankrupt, immoral, slave-mongoring life style. He died a habitual, self absorbed, self lavishing debtor. President Washington found the man to be an insufferable dreamer, and was glad he resigned. Jefferson's one supposed great act as an American Citizen (America as a country did not exist when he plagiarized the ideas in the Declaration of Independence from John Loch and others), the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional as was the under the table orders he gave Capt Merriweather Lewis to leave the confines of the purchase and to go into territory claimed by both Spain and England, chancing war with both!
The simple fact is, Presidents sometimes have to do the expedient thing at the time, and argue the constitutionality later, after saving the nation. What would have happened if Lincoln had failed to march troops unconstitutionally into Maryland and declare martial law to save the Capitol and the Union? What would the United States look like today if Pres Jackson had abandoned the unconstitutional "Indian Removal Act" and let the Indians keep vast areas between the Appalachians and the Mississippi? Hoover's policies, especially his abuse of the "Bonus Army" could have led the a bloody communist revolution in the is country!! FDR's sane and humanitarian aproach calmed the nation down, and save it from self distruction. If you can't see that, you need your head examined. I have eight uncles who were thrown onto the road as hoboes during the depression, as was my father. Dad ended up working on Boulder Dam. They all praise FDR for his actions, and they spat any time Hoover's name was mentioned. They all served valiantly clear through WW II, used the GI Bill afterwards, and helped make postwar America the greatest country on earth. What did conservatives do during that period except carp and gripe????? What's done is done - no use whining about it. Best to look at the future, make the best guess with the candidates and law-makers available - and ride out the next storm - - |
|||
|
|
Member |
Minor point if I may GWG. We as a nation can still rectify a great deal of the legislative bs that has and does bypass constitutional limits on federal power, whereas, we really cannot rectify past military/militaristic measures where all parties have ceased to be. The executive orders and legislation is still there, so they can be rectified, and should be. For example "Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (emphasis added) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" states all excises, which are taxes, should be uniform, the whole tax code is contrary to the tenants of the Constitution, but a flat percentage would be in accord with the wording of the highest law of this nation, as well as more fair to all people in the nation.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Given that ignorance of the Constitution and its history is epidemic, many people, the people running the federal government being no exception, must be basing their support for one of the two major parties on emotion, not fact. If such is the case, then I suspect that simply making people aware of the facts will smash the chains of ignorance for many people, regardless of what side of the fence they're on. Again, "we" need to get the facts out. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Is that your best response to the authoritative, Constitution-related excerpts that I presented in my post? Again, given that FDR was a popular president, he should have had no problem rallying the states to exercise their Article V power to amend the Constitution to properly authorize the federal government to administer his New Deal programs, while respecting 10th A. protected state powers. Instead, constitutional flunky FDR hot-wired the USSC to get what he wanted, butchering state powers. Doing so has ultimately resulted in serious damage to traditional family values which were protected by those powers. This message has been edited. Last edited by: TenthAmendment, |
|||
|
Blessed is the nation God is for. |
10th Amendment, I find your essay well written and well documented.  There are some dificulties, however. For one thing, while it is very nice and convenient to lay all of our Constitutional woes (or at least their beginings) at FDR's doorstep and tie a nice ribbon around it; the reality is that the enemies of the Constitution had already been very busily at work almost from the moment of ratification. While I could cite many examples, none will serve any real purpose here. But perhaps the bigest single blow to Constitutional freedoms came from Woodrow Wilson, who enacted the Federal Reserve Act, and under whom the ficticious 16th Amendment came into being. It has been advanced that Wilson was really duped by Mendel House, but in any case, that is precisely how both illegal taxation and illegal money came into being in this country. Also, it opened the door for further Constitutional mischief, which FDR - the consumate politition - was sure to take advantage of. So while I most heartily agree that FDR started America down our present path, I cannot lay the entire debacle upon him. But the real question becomes, "How are we to turn this situation around and return to Constitutional Law - ergo, legal government?" Unfortunately, unless America is willing to undertake another revolution to restore what we once had, I don't think it will be possible. The average American is simply too complacent to care; and revolutions require men of character, which are in pitifully short supply these days. So even for America to attempt some sort of "Spiritual Revolution", which would most likely produce the fewest casualties, I just don't see it happening. In fact, it is precisely because of the lack of character and leadership in today's scene that I greatly fear that America will be forced to continue to pay unlawful taxes that we really don't owe, with unlawful money that really is a myth, in order to pay for both unlawful wars and unconstitutional government programs that most Americans really don't want! Worse yet, at the rate things are going we will all soon be walking to the "poor-house" and our great grandchildren will have the burden of figuring out how to pay for it all. In the shortest terms possible - WE'RE DOOMED! Thank you again for a well written essay and I sincerely hope you will join me in praying for God's divine intervention for the country I love. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I agree! As I noted in the post, regarding the Constitution, everything's a mess! The Constitution has had problems since day one. But regardless of the confusion, the intentions of constitutional lawmakers and other authoritative insights have survived despite hundreds of years of politically correct interpretations of the document. So my goal is to help free people from being slaves of conscience to politically correct, special-interest interpretations of the Constitution. Let the will of the Article V majority prevail! This message has been edited. Last edited by: TenthAmendment, |
|||
|
|
Member |
I'm not disagreeing with you, just the opposite. Furthermore, don't assume I'm ignoring anything. You are making assumptions to support your ideas. Rethink your posts about somebody until you actually know them.
|
|||
|
|
Blessed is the nation God is for. |
I must question your use of the term: ignorant government leaders. While we might be charitable and excuse some acts committed by our leaders out of ignorance, it is well-nigh impossible to excuse their criminal behavior when it is willfully done! Most of our government leaders are not such poor readers that they honestly fail to understand the Constitution that is being willfully trampled underfoot. |
|||
|
