The Constitution Does What it Was Written To Do — Expand Government Power

Mises Institute ^ | January 9, 2018 | Eric Peters

[Pelham]

The first progressive President being Teddy Roosevelt, Republican.

Well Republican until he ran in 1912 on the Progressive Party ticket, better remembered as the Bull Moose Party.

Some other prominent socialist/progressives of that era were Helen Keller and Mark Twain. Bet that will surprise a lot of people.

[Monorprise]

He’s completely wrong in his presumption that the Cort can do whatever it wishes in dictating the meaning of the law.

This is why we are supposed to have a 3 branch and 3 level system of government. Otherwise the whole constitution is a worthless letter as all law would in practice be decided by a set of dictators on a Case by case bases. In effect the rule of those men in Black robes not any law much less the law written by elected representative of the people.

The probem we have today is that many of our corrupt elected leaders eyther don’t know or more likely don’t want to check the lawless court. Indeed many of our leaders are actually passing laws to empower the lawless courts by providing them the means to enforce their edict. The rest have become so uses to this totaltarism by employees in Black robes that they actually believed it legal. Even though is precludes the possibility of checks and Ballances as well as rule of the people.

Thus his presumption of the application of clever “legalies” by Alexander Hamltion is reduculess on 2 separate account.

1: they we’re creating a new country there was no ‘obscure legal language’ known only to judges and lawers beyond the language of the people as there new laws were we’re written and sold, which is logically the language of any law written and autherized by the same.
We abandoned Latin as a legal language for a good reason, and it wasn’t so we could invent a new language known only to a legal elite.

2: Alexander Hamltion did not even write the constitution we have. ( His more centerlizing preposal was rejected).

The commerce and general welfare clauses had very spesfic meaning. One to make regular commerce as in trade ‘among the states’ not within them. The other as a mere qualifications upon welding the proceeding enumerated powers.