The Constitutional Case Against Progressives
by Josie Wales[Do not read this article without a copy of the Constitution, and if you do not have one handy, shame on you (link here).]
A line is being drawn in the sand between the statists and Americans, and I use the term American in the grandest sense. The United States of America represents one of the last bastions of traditional liberalism, which is why the Left should no longer be identified as liberal, but rather we should continue to identify its members as progressive statists. The Left believes the precepts of our Constitution have failed society, and thus, we must look towards the “enlightened democracies” of socialized Europe for guidance in the progression of American society.
We hear the mantra of rights professed daily by the progressives: education, work, social security, health care, etc. And since we do not live in a state of nature, the guarantor of those rights must be the government. This is the definition of a statist, and adherence to these beliefs is inherently in opposition to the Constitution. The Founders recognized that government could NEVER be the guarantor of rights which is why so much of the Constitution is written in terms of limiting powers conferred upon the government.
Take for example Article I § 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives (emphasis added).
Congress has no power outside the enumerated powers identified in the Constitution, and furthermore, Congress may not exercise any power that is not inherently legislative in nature. Article I § 9 lists specific power limitations upon Congress, and Article I § 10 lists legislative power limitations upon the States. Article III identifies the judicial power of the United States and limits it in much the same manner as in Article I.
Article II is a little different, but can only be understood in the context of the framing of the Constitution. Article II § 1 begins:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
On its face, Article II seems to grant rather broad powers to the President. One of the main reasons the Constitution was created was because of the impotence of the Articles of Confederation without a federal executive. But even the President is confined to the boundaries identified in the Constitution through his Constitutional Oath as written in Article II § 1 cl. 8:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (emphasis added).
All other Constitutional officers are “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,” in Article VI cl. 3, but the President is beholden to specific duties.
The only time “right” is mentioned in the original articles of the Constitution is in Congress’s duty to promote the ownership of Authors and Inventors to their respective creations (Article I § 8 cl. 8), but even that was only to be secured for a limited time. The Bill of Rights is written in negative terms to prevent the government from infringing upon certain recognized rights of the people. The only positive rights are identified in the 6th Amendment, but should really be read in the negative since the government prosecutes for alleged crimes committed. In fact, the entire Constitution, articles and amendments, is written in terms of limiting government infringement upon existing rights, not creating rights. For a discussion of this you must check out Federalist No. 84. Furthermore, many of the amendments to the Constitution forbade government infringement upon the people’s rights (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th).
Some would argue that “privileges and immunities,” as discussed in Article IV § 2, indicates positive rights, but rights are not privileges because privileges may be revoked. Article I § 9 cl. 2 recognizes the “privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” but also recognizes that it may be revoked under certain circumstances. Privileges are allowances granted to specified individuals in areas where government power prevails, which is limited to the powers granted by the Constitution.
Let us turn our attention to the most under-utilized provision of the Constitution as it exists today; the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (emphasis added).
Essentially, any right not identified by the Constitution is retained by the people, not the government (state or national). This is where progressive statists run astray of the Constitution. Government cannot grant us the “right” to work or receive health care because government does not have that power, nor the power to force us to exercise any right (imagine the outcry if the government forced every person to exercise their 2nd Amendment right). And the government does not equal “the people” because our government is only representative of an illusory majority.
Herein lays the danger of the progressive statist utopia. It envisions a permanent government entity, exemplified in the bureaucracy. People may come and go, but the government will always remain. And our rights are beholden to that permanent entity.
Americans recognize that government is only an extension of the individuals that comprise it, and thus ethereal. Bureaucracies are invasive upon the rights of the people. And unless the people are vigilant in protecting their rights, all governments will attempt to seize them.
The United States of America was the first country to create a government wholly in terms of limitation. This is what makes it the first and last bastion of traditional liberalism. We often identify ourselves as conservatives or libertarians, but we are only as much because we understand the context of the Constitution striving to create a liberal utopia within the boundaries of our nation. We understand and have fought against the horrors of the statist utopia, so we must not allow the progressive statists to hide behind concepts like liberalism.
And for those who espouse certain liberal social rights, you will not find salvation within the progressive statist agenda. You will only find regulation and marginalization; at least until the government deems you oppressive to the progress of the state.
The Constitution cannot be a living, breathing document. If it is then government can arbitrarily grant and take-away the people’s rights. If it is then the government can arbitrarily create and seize powers.
Read your Constitution. Study your Constitution. Defend your Constitution.
The Constitution is your only protection from the progressive statist utopia.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
244 Comments
If the Progressives get "healthcare" you kiss the Constitution goodbye.
Our constitution is divine – the problem is that there are folks in power that do not understand this.
There are already so many socialist programs that are not among the enumerated rights of the constitution.
Throw in this "Obamanation" of Healthcare Reform that would eventually control such a large part of our lives and our Country, and the Constitution will increasingly be viewed by many as something that doesn't apply anymore.
We the People, cannot allow that to happen!!!
There are already so many socialist programs that fall outside of the enumerations of the Constitution.
Add in this Progressive overtaking of Healthcare, with the Congress and the President thumbing their noses at We the Pepole while they disregard the Constitution, and there will continue to be an increasing number of "dependent" people that have no idea what this document means to our liberty and freedom.
We the People cannot allow this to happen!!
What I think should also be made clear is this distorted definition of liberals calling themselves 'progressives.'
In truth, what the liberal left proposes is 'regressive' to include their leanings toward socialism, marxism and communism–all European forms of government for which our Founders rejected in favor of our self-governing free Republic and it's governing Constitution.
This free, self-governing Republic which our Founding Fathers, with help of the Almighty God, incorporated with our Constitution of the United States, is the most progressive government in the world.
Let us expose these retrograde, libertine liberal leftists for what they truly are–primitive.
Well…I have been trying to post, and keep getting deleted by the administrator????
The lure of power tends to attract the wrong people to politics. Witness Eric Massa: he was a perfect example of the wrong type of politician, as is Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, Waxman, Graham, and, well, you know who the rest are. These people have no concept of the restriction of power. Obama himself called our Constitution a "limiting document" primarily due to it's failure to redistribute wealth to his liking.
So much in our form of government rests upon the individual's voluntary adherence to the Constitution. Our system isn't broken: we've managed to somehow elect the wrong people into it.
Damn right. We don't want the federal government to do anything for the general welfare of the people like it so clearly states.
I, for one, am doing my part by never using the interstate highway system, nor buying anything that has traveled the interstate highway system. It only enables those dirty scum sucking feds.
God you people are stupid.
There are many Progressive programs already in place. If Healthcare Reform in it's current direction is passed while the President and the Dimocrats in Congress thumb their noses at We the People, then the control over the lives of the American people will increase tremendously, and it will continue to create an increasing dependence that is not in the spirit of the Constitution.
We the People cannot allow this to pass!!!
Constitutional Rights?
""They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."
~ Barry Goldwater ~
All I want is left alone. I will defend that right, to the death.
This is the best and most concise explanation of the U.S. Constitution that I have ever read!
I did not realize you were such a Constitutional scholar Mr. Wales. I though you were content to just give those damn Kansas "Red Legs" the whoppin' they desperately deserve. Great Job!
Wrong. If it is "passed", it gets repealed. The Constitution stays.
Thanks for posting this article. More people need to understand the context and underlying principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You did a good job of hitting the high notes. Hopefully, this will entice many more Americans (to Hell with everyone else…they don't get a say) to become re-engaged with their heritage. If you're going to fight, you need to know exactly what's at stake. Above all, never take someone else's word for anything important in life! Learn for yourselves.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Declaration of Independence.
"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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government"
Basically it's saying that when the government shows signs of or "evinces" a design or plan (even intention) to reduce (subvert) us to system of despotism, it is our duty to throw off such government/representation. In this case it is our duty to remove and replace, by any means, those who seek to subvert and undermine the will of the people (aka their constituents).
I say, "such has been the patient sufferance of these" united states "and such is now the necessity which constrains (compels) them to alter their former Systems of Government"
most of them probably have never read it.
Anon: "Damn right. We don't want the federal government to do anything for the general welfare of the people like it so clearly states. "
Like WHAT so clearly states? You failed to state what exactly what was so clearly stating a statement.
Dang, you're stupid.
And we must also correct the distortion by the liberal left in projecting themselves as 'progressive.' What they would offer, in truth, is to have us move backward.
Our self-governing Republic governed by our Constitution is, in fact, the most 'progressive' government in history. The democratic liberal leanings toward imperialist, marxist, socialist and communist styles of government are, actually, 'regressive' European forms of government of which our Founders rejected.
Let's also expose these retrograde, libertine liberal leftists truly are–primitive
Doesn't the Constitution require the Congress to only meet once a year? Why has it become a de facto full-time organization?
"Like WHAT so clearly states?"
The constitution. Dumbass.
Divine?
hey, dummy, we'd rather the federal government do as we ask, not at it pleases.
God you're and idiot for not understanding that.
If you are going to refer to the constitutions at least use the whole line you are referring to:
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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now that we have have the preamble to the Constitution here to read, please define what you call the general welfare of the citizens?
I share that sentiment. Simply put, Progressives, leave me alone and I won't kill you.
Or better yet DontTreadOnMe, kindly cite the portion of the constitution that empowers the federal government to build interstate highways with YOUR tax dollars.
The Constitution doesn't advocate a nanny state nor government control which are part of the core ideology that the Left thrives on. What the Constitution does advocate is Individual rights and freedom and that is the worst thing in the world for the Left as it doesn't require their involvement.
So they can pillage and rob the people of money all year, that's why. We need to limit them to meeting one month out of the year, tops. Texas has had great success with keeping their state from being ruined by legislators this way.
It comes from God
Social Security, Medi-Care, Medi-Caid . . . I know this time is different – civil war different – but these commies are willing to kill for their socialist dream. Put it this way as you and I are just trying to survive and distract ourselves and discuss politics, then there is your congressman getting threatened and bought off to vote for this – this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore, the sooner we all come to that conclusion the better. This is a dictatorship under the color of law – very dangerous for all involved. We elected a dictator, not a President. I know we have in the past, and will in the future, but it is very scary to live through.
Me, too.
Anon, you are the most idiotic, willfully ignorant fool I have ever seen on any post anywhere at any time. To wish anything on you would be a waste of time, as you already exist in the most wretched state of humanity that it is possible to survive in. You have my pity.
If you think congress' healthcare reform has ANYTHING to do with actual health care reform, you really are stupid. It's a power grab, nothing more.
Not only have they read it, they hate it!
Excellent! I would be fine with identifying the two emerging political parties rightly as the Progressive Statist Party and the American Party.
I finally figured it out…was using S O C I A L I S T
Folks, I wouldn't waste my time even responding further to him. It is apparent he is eat up with a case of the dumbass, and as we all know, ya can't fix stupid.
Let me try to clean up last. We could not repeal any other entitlement program – the odds are long indeed to repeal this one. The USA will breath a sigh of relief that the debate is over and we will move on to other concerns. Those concerns will be dictated to us and so will the solutions. In time people will accept their fate – unless this issue becomes like slavery once was, one that could be avoided no longer and a modern day "Henry Clay" steps forward to not only hold off the possible – but solves what is the intractable.
Guess your right that they have read because they are doing there best to destroy it and the counry.
Try to say what you want to say using less threatening language. See my post below.
"Essentially, any right not identified by the Constitution is retained by the people, not the government (state or national)."
YES!
YES!
YES!
Repeat that another thousand times.
Giving rights to the states means nothing more or less than trading a federal master for a state master.
Our Constitution has separation of powers, not separation of rights.
"…but rights are not privileges because privileges may be revoked."
Ahem.
Rights may be revoked, via due process of law. Think trial by jury of your peers. Think jail cell . Think physical freedom being revoked. Think death penalty. These are examples of rights being revoked – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness all revoked as a result of chosen action.
Rights and Privileges are the same thing. Look at the 14th itself. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…"
What has happened, over time, is a bastardization of the meaning of the word privilege. As I have said before, think of this example. Today, if a person views a 1966 Mustang at a car show and they say " That's bad! No negativity exists, even though, by definition, the word bad is negative.
Rights and privileges are the same thing when talking about the Constitution. Some may want to deny it, but as Gura told the Supreme Court, those who do so should look to history to see it is true. To those who stick with the notion that they are two different things, I challenge them to explain how the 14th Amendment did not create a new class of citizenship absent inalienable rights where we are all nothing more than subjects being ruled over by an all powerful government that can require us to gain permission to do anything and deny that permission at it's own whim without boundaries.
I would offer to folks that the Constitution can only be construed as a negative document if one limits viewing it from the perspective of government. There are more perspectives to consider.
This is why need so desperately need people to represent us that would do so out of a sense or responsibility and/or patriotism. Those people we continue to elect do so only for personal benefit. This is why our government is filled with lawyers, millionaires and career politicians whose second language is legalese. The ones who continue to write two thousand plus page bills to camouflage their agenda items.
You give him too much credit calling his ignorance willful. I'm sure he can't help it.
No one's going to stand for this sack of BS. An entitlement no majority wanted in the 1st place? One that does NOT save money or improve quality of care, and in fact costs more and reduces quality? One that the people knew little about before it was passed (maybe)? One that took legislative legerdemain and buy-offs and bribes and tricky manuevers and "deem (ing)"? One that we get taxed for for four years before anyone ever sees a single benefit??? HELL no.
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148
"[If] it [were] assumed that the general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for the 'general welfare,' that [would include] all the legitimate powers of government, since no government has a legitimate right to do what is not for the welfare of the governed." –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397
It was NEVER meant to be a career job!!!
Interstate Highway system was Eisenhower's way of ensuring that troops could safely and quickly move about the country in case of war on US soil or other national emergency. That helps everyone.
"Health care reform" is just a naked power grab by nakedly evil people.
"Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
"Talking to you is like an alien talking to a fungo"
"promote general welfare" does not mean choosing winners and losers. What kind of moron would ever want a government to be the arbiter of fairness.
In fact, I propose the banning of the would "fair".
AMEN COWBOY!!!!
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison
My wife said this to me last night.
I own the privilege to exercise my right to keep and bear arms or not.
I own the privilege to exercise my right to pray or not.
I own the privilege to exercise my right to speak or not.
She gets it, rights and privileges are the same thing.
Is that crayon blue-green or green-blue? Same thing, just said an alternative way.
"What has happened, over time, is a bastardization of the meaning of the word privilege."
You know it!
Privilege and rights have both been bastardized and interchanged so much, that entitlements are now the word of the day. Just like every fool that dies anymore is a "hero", words in the lexicon get twisted. Just because some drunken fool walked in front of a train, that doesn't make him a hero. He just had bad luck.
It is the same with our rights and privileges.
When Don King was promoting Mike Tyson fights, was he providing anything more than an opportunity?
Anon, think about that…
Once again, you are the fool.
The government does not give you anything, except protection and the infrastructure to do business. The rest is up to you. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I think you may have heard of the concept, but are so unintelligent that you haven't exercised it.
We'll "stop at nothing" too. This BS has got to end. The Left is too self-centered; they cannot sustain as those who are motivated by LOVE can (love of country, love of freedom, love of family). Love of power will not win them this war.
common defence clause.
Really?
Can you share with me what Book and verse of the bible it appears in?
Can you identify the judge, King, prophet, or saint that proclaimed it?
Which of its authors do we venerate in the full religious sense?
One person's rights stop where another person's rights begin.
If we stuck to the Constitution we would be governed by 2/3 conservatives, and 1/3 liberals. Thanks to Rahm and his devious plan to find pro-gun, pro-life dems to run – against rino's – they won and now we have pelosi, reid, and obama. Once these new dems get to dc he uses the dc gravey train to seduce them or extort them.
We The people have the authority to make that fully known.
The entire House of Representatives can be replaced and it would be a profound message sent this fall if that comes to pass.
Thank God I'm not the only one who figured this out. I've been saying exactly this for a long time now all over the place.
Progressives are Big Government Statists and as such, violate the spirit and letter of the Founding Principles. – Me.
No, it requires them to meet at least once in every year.
Also, neither house can adjourn for more than three days unless the other house does, and they must meet in the same place.
There is no minimum amount of time they can sit around and conspire.
With rights comes responsibility – Freedom is not free.
Dang! Madison was psychic.
You might want to read your constitution again.
"We the People(1) 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(2), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I will summarize for you. We the people ordain and establish this constitution to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure (ensure) domestic tranquility, PROVIDE FOR the common defense, (read closely now) PROMOTE (not provide) the general welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You see? The constitution itself was created, not the government, for these purposes and with these intents. This does not mean that by virtue of establishing a government that the government is thereby responsible for these things. Nowhere in these words do you find that the government was established to provide anything other than to equip and facilitate the people to defend themselves and their nation.
Fuchsia.
The "certain inalienable rights" do, yes, but not The Constitution. That was created by men. Wise men, but men.
The only documents God gave Man directly were the Ten Commandments.
"the Constitution can only be construed as a negative document if one limits viewing it from the perspective of government"
Excellent point. The founders, being knowledgeable of the history of government abuses, did not trust government to remain a tool of all citizens and wrote limitations to the power of government. They did foresee the need to deal with individuals who would harm others and left the power to deal with these individuals with people in the form of a jury, not the government. This system, while not perfect in every case, generally works well to prosecute criminals without giving the government the powers needed by tyrants.
Exactly.
Related satire: Historians Discover Lost Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (click image to enlarge) http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/historians-di...
True. But the 'requirement' is for once a year. They must meet once a year. Here's the wording in the original document..
"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."
I think we should ask Congress to go back to meeting just once a year. We can't afford them in this economy.
How di
And one might well suggest that a totalitarian government "providing" everything does not, in fact, promote the general welfare, never mind utterly failing to secure the blessings (or other aspects) of liberty, establish justice, or insure doestic tranquility.
If the Constitution is null and void then so is the 16th Amendment and any obligation we have to pay federal income taxes…..
Straight Democracy – a tool of all citizens.
You hit the nail on the head. Another example of how wicked the Selective Incorporation Doctrine is.
RE Leadfingers:
The line from the Declaration of Independence that you quote ("But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…") is a bit misleading without mentioning that the document also cautions against such an action without major justification. It does so in the preceding line:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…."
Importantly, the document then goes on to list well over a dozen British abuses to demonstrate that the declaration is not imprudent.
To often people use this document to threaten or promote revolution without placing it within context.
As you quoted, "at least".
That not merely fully admits to assembling more often, but pretty much suggests that is an expected standard.
Not looking things up at the moment, I would expect it stood in reaction to the practice of the English Parliament, which had no such requirement, and which could meet once, approve ministers, then leave the government to what was functionally a legislative/executive oligarchy operating without any oversight.
That is basically what a lot of progressives would like now! For Congress to have met, elected Pelosi and Reid, have them pass majority resolutions endorsing Obama, then disband for two years while Obama reigns via his "czars".
When Congress is not dominated by the same party that holds the Presidency, meeting more often to legislate against excesses of executive orders is a Good Thing (TM).
Unfortunately our troll doesn't understand that.
Yes. Sadly, he was.
At 17, in 1960 I stepped forward and took this oath;
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
After 50 years; nothing has changed.
Back in the day, "welfare" didn't mean hand-out. It meant general well-being. Read a dictionary.
I know. When did it become one? I'd love a history of Congress from the time before it became a full-time career that made men/women millionaires.
Obama has stated that he wants to "break free" from the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Every time I hear him say that it gives me the chills. He was a professor of the Constitution, but he just doesn't get it. He sees the negative terms as just that, a negative thing that needs to be destroyed in order for him to have his way. That his way may be a terrible thing for all of us, he just can't admit or even comprehend.
Move to Somalia. You'll love it there. A total lack of a central government. Militia rule. Teabagger heaven.
It is not that he will not admit or comprehend such, he simply believes in a political ideology completely different, and rather thoroughly in opposition, to the ideology expressed within the Constitution.
Actually, I'm considering Mali.
They have a problem there that needs corrected.
You're welcome to come.
I'd love tracking you through the bush.
use a capital i instead of a lower case L, and it works.
If they had to keep REAL jobs 11 months out of the year they'd be less tone-deaf , less destructive and more reality-based people.
A lot of us should do something similar every July 4, after we read the Declaration of Independence at our backyard BBQs.
"Obama said the Constitution mostly "says what the states can't do to you … what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."….
What HE wants is total control! We cannot allow this to happen…This arrogant narcissist wants to be the one to rewrite the Constitution in order to giver 'his' people reparations…..
Each State should write a new law so that only one of their Senators
could be from the legal profession.
Good points. I can see your point of view. Thanks.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Constitution actually grant State government more power than the federal government? Wasn't Congress originally meant to be a means by which each state was represented to take care of federal business such as maintaining national security, overseeing national roads, and the other very limited areas in which the federal government was meant to preside?
I always thought that the founding fathers by requiring only "at least one assembly" per year were acknowledging that the federal powers were limited and didn't require a full Congress to be present year round.
In essence, the founding fathers produced a Constitution that created a Union of Sovereign States hence why we are called the United States. The President was the Commander-in-Chief in regards to national security and his/her other limited scope of power.
That was always my understanding.
Good article.
The next step is to brush up on Article II – Secton 4.
Section 4 – Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A case is building for several specific counts justifying impeachment of POTUS, and AG, for a general failure to fulfill the oath to "…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take our present peril]
Thank you. Congress was never meant to be a place where you retired after 40 years as a millionaire with a Cadillac health plan and enormous pension for the rest of your life.
You think anyone in the GOP would have the guts to repeal it?
Did they repeal social security?
Simply put, corruption is measured not by how much money Congressmen receive, but from how much they spend. Constitutional government limits corruption going out from Washington DC.
[...] » The Constitutional Case Against Progressives – Big Government [...]
The reality is that the "entitlement programs" are broke. No more money and no prospect of repair with the current set of morons in DC. They are going to end one way or the other, that you can bet on.
The phrase "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare' in the PREAMBLE is not a carte blanche grant of power, but merely an introduction to the enumerated powers that follow – powers that concern the common defense and the general welfare.
Try reading the ENTIRE Constitution some time. The REAL Constitution, not the "living, breathing" one.
Compone, that is the wrong path. What you seek can be accomplished without going there.
Voters already have the power needed to do exactly that, they simply need to exercise it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.