Constitutional Deconstruction:Obama,Pelosi,reid,congress.
The author is loose with facts regarding the Articles of Confederation and the Convention.
However, there is no argument that our federal government is out of control. It is asking for an uprising. I hope a state finally challenges the feds soon in no uncertain terms.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
I HAVE A PRESENT FOR ALL OF YOU... I HAVE GAINED ACCESS TO THE ENEMY’S LITTLE SECRET WEAPON TO PUSH HEALTH CARE DOWN OUR THROATS... AND WE CAN NOW USE IT AGAINST THEM!
Obama provides his people a link to contact media to support health care bill! Spread the word!
we can use this same link to OPPOSE it. Dick Morris says we have to get 8% points in disapproval ratings to defeat it! Please follow this link, send your letter of opposition. (and continue to fax)
Thanks Sandra for providing me this info:
Barack Obamas “ Organizing for America “ has put the call out for people to Email their local papers and write a letter to the editor. They have created a VERY easy and fast way to write all your local papers with just a few key strokes. PLEASE take a minute to do this today and jump behind enemy lines to help kill the bill.
Here’s what we need to do:
Go to : http://my.democrats.org/page/speakout/posthouseLTE
1. Put in your Zip code. You will be redirected to a page where you enter all your address information.
2. Check all the boxes for all of your local papers.
3. NOW CAREFUL THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART ! DO NOT CLICK NEXT. Instead Click “ 2. Compose Letter “ this is in the top middle of the page. This will allow you to compose your own letter to the editor against the health care bill.
4. Write your letter to the editor against the health care bill.
5. Now click Next
6. Preview your letter to the editor and click Send Email
HERE IS MY OWN JEWEL TO A DOZEN NEWSPAPERS (LOL)...
So... senator, you say you are from the government, and you are here to “help” me? Read my lips, sir: I am an AMERICAN. I am not a slave. I do NOT need nor want your help. I do not need nor want your determination of “What is best for me.” That proscription includes my choices of where I live, what I eat or drink, how I travel, what physician I select, and the methods I determine best effect my personal defense. You see, senator, I too am “pro-choice” — and I choose to keep my freedoms. Kindly keep your hands off.
I have come to understand a paramount axiom about the largess of centralized power: At each instance the government, or one of its agents, enacts a “plan to help,” two results occur simultaneously without exception — my wallet and my freedoms both shrink.
It is in the eternal nature of things that governments do not exist to help individuals, without first exponentially enlarging themselves ... thus further growing their appetite for power at the expense of personal liberty.
Exactly where within our Constitution do the 18 powers delegated to Congress confer the authority to determine my health care? You will not find any such power. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment is quite explicit in further defining the line of demarcation:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth Amendment states a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.
What is the root of all this government desire to control every aspect of American life? Two words: general welfare. A phrase that appears only twice in the Constitution — the Preamble and Section 8 of Article I.
What of the Preamble of the Constitution? A preamble is used to state the principles and the purpose of the document. The Preamble of the Constitution reads:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The preamble of the Constitution establishes no powers or rights. No further development of what “general welfare” means can be made based on the preamble. So let us next examine Article 1, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Congress would have us convinced that this ‘General Welfare’ clause grants them the power to provide health care; but a cursory reading of the Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 absolutely refutes such a claim. The General Welfare clause was not an independent grant of power. What did “welfare” mean in the age of the Founders?
In the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, here is how the word “welfare” was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:
WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.
A distinction is made with respect to welfare, as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution, welfare is used in the context of states and not persons. The “welfare of the United States” is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.
The heading statement of Article 1, Section 8, confers on Congress powers to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. It then states the purpose of this in broad terms, to be expressed in detail in the list of 18 powers that follows. This purpose is that the funding placed at Congress’ disposition is to be used for federal and state debts due to the Revolutionary War, for future defense, and for the “general welfare of the United States.” It concludes with limiting the duties, imposts and excises to amounts that would be uniform among the states. No more is stated here than a basic power to tax and spend. All other details, as to what, specifically, the tax revenue may be spent on, follows in the list of 18 specific powers.
“General welfare” was a term transferred from the Articles of Confederation. However, its meaning at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was plain: no local interests could be provided aid from the federal government. The General Welfare clause entailed the good of the Union, the binding of states together for their mutual benefit, the health of the separated powers, and the federalist structure — not the health and well-being of groups or individuals. The benefit of this “general welfare” had to be a benefit for all rather than some people, without it being a direct benefit to every individual. It had to be limited to “public use.”
During the Convention, Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison advocated a strong central “nationalist” government, supreme in all, and that could provide all manner of public goods. Jefferson advocated a federal government of limited powers.
What was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?
The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (BUT REJECTED) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to “negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.— (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 207)
Hamilton’s principle of supreme sovereignty WAS NOT ACCEPTED by the convention delegates. What became apparent to those who advocated a national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified. History proves that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15)
In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? If the federal government may usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, then where is the genius in our form of government?
What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery. The very document designed to perpetuate principles of federalism has been de-constructed to destroy those principles, leaving us with the very form of government that those who framed and ratified our Constitution rejected.
What we presently have is not a limited central power, counterbalanced in federal union with independent sovereign states, but rather we are savaged through the repugnant perversion of power called totalitarianism.
By deceptive “construction,” America has been duped into accepting a nationalist government, and by guided global “consensus” we will be conned to accept an internationalist government. The American concept of ordered liberty, threatened by an arrogant and increasingly bellicose dogma, will be forever changed into something wholly alien to our founding principles. We will be coerced by powers which demand we surrender every vestige of our hard-fought liberty to a “We know best” international socialist authority that demands every aspect of our lives fall in line with its freedom eradicating formula of “sustainability” and “smart growth.” What is sustainable? Nothing that is American... including our health care system, which is why the elites are so desperate to “reform” it out of existence.
The reason we must surrender that which works? Global control. Pseudo science has given us all manner of convenient crises so to achieve that most coveted objective: the population explosion hoax, the climate change hoax, the pandemic hoax, and a host of other globalist groupie gibberish that the “We know best” tyrants are manipulating to steal our wealth, our land, our health, and whatever else they deem “unsustainable” in their brave new world — Soon they will steal our very lives.
Americans do not need health care reform as much as we need government reform — and fast. Because if we cannot obtain it through the ballot box, then it must surely come by way of the ammo box.