Posted on 04/01/2012 8:01:01 AM PDT by radioone
As James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
That seems so simple to understand. Why is it so hard for the guys in DC to play by the rules?
Easy!!! They do not want to admit to the Constitution's limits, because, as my post pointed out on another thread today, they cannot carry on their so-called "progressive" programs if they stir the people to understand and hold them to the bounds and limits of "the People's" Constitution.
Here is part of the post from the other thread:
This is the kind of discussion which needs to be going on all over America today.
This is the discussion which GOP presidential candidates need to have with voters for Obama's so-called "progressive" "redistributive" vision for America conflicts with his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Those, like Lithwick, who come up with the touchy, feely "shared responsibility," or "obligation to others" descriptions never bother to tell us that the "progressive" vision requires a heavy-handed political regime to enforce its mandates, and that regime, in whatever combinations it may try to manifest itself, is precisely what the U. S. Constitution is designed to prevent.
That is why they are frustrated. The Constitution stands in the way of their custom-designed method of "changing" America from a free society to one in which some imperfect people plan, direct, manage and control all the other imperfect people.
That is their perverted vision of "justice," and they cannot enforce it without "changing" the Constitution, and they know that they cannot "change" it according to its own provisions; therefore, they must use Trojan Horses like "health care" and "shared responsibility" to trick "the People" into abandoning individual freedom.
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."
Last 5 paras. excerpted from
Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) "Do We Have a Living Constitution?" (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5 (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)
Our Founding Fathers thought that not to be clear enough, passed a second Amendment in favor of State's rights - the 10th Amendment:
"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 above Amendments and the various public statements,correspondence, and personal writings from the Founding Fathers can not make their intent more clear that they believed in limited Federalism and almost unlimited States' rights. Yes, you can argue who stood for Federalism and who stood for anti-Federalism at the time. In the end, we have the United States Constitution - the law of the land.
How so many USSC justices through the years have parsed, spun, and completely ignored original intent is beyond me. But then lawyerese is notorious for spinning things with clever word crafting. If this current Court does not shoot down this obabomination of our most basic right to not be forced to buy a product/service, this Nation is indeed heading to very bad days.
I know people who are already saying they will cancel their health insurance policies because they know with pre-existing requirements their costs will skyrocket until the insurance companies are out of business, which was always the end game for Obama, Reid, Pelosi and fellow socialists.
As I've stated in many threads, I will not comply. I will cash out my stocks and money-market funds and hide the proceeds and dare the Fedgov to come to my home to try and collect their penalty for not buying their approved insurance plan. Screw them. I'm retired and have no income. Yeah, I realize they could put a lean on my home, but they want to see civil unrest? That will do it. It will make the "gimmes" and their riots look like a pissy kid at a birthday party.
This is the line in the sand. This and that HHS forcing religion based organizations to provide services contrary to their principles. The Fedgov has long been stepping outside its Constitutional boundaries drip by drip. I will not comply.
If obama and holder can ignore Fedgov laws, so can I. Read my lips, government officials, I will NOT comply. I will use every last resource I have to hire the best Constitutional lawyers to make that case and bury you all. I've been poor; I've been rich; I've been medium, and I am heading to the back stretch of my life. I won't be antagonistic, but will fight for my inalienable rights as guaranteed by the greatest document this rock has ever seen.
I will not go quietly into the good night without a fight.
Sorry for the rant.
In my opinion, he should have resigned rather than defend a law that clearly violates the Constitution he took an oath to defend.
THAT is the most perfect (pun intended) succinct explanation of the failings of socialism/communism/totalitarianism I have ever seen, and why those ideologies will NEVER work. They are directed by "imperfect people" towards "imperfect people".
Your point explains why the communes of the 1960's failed. They were populated by "imperfect people" who all agreed to work as much as the next and reap the same rewards while under "imperfect leadership" (yes, they had leaders). They found that some were more "imperfect" than others (worked less), so the producers left to go back to school or jobs or home and their utopian society imploded due to not enough producers (tilling the gardens or weaving the clothing). Saw it first hand.
Extrapolate the above to the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and now to a lessor degree Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, et al? The "gimmes", as I call them are destroying Europe and bringing America into a second-world nation.
I guess the argument can be made for current primitive tribes that still exist in Africa, South America (think Amazon), Middle East, and even the outback of Australia. However, their primitive collective cultures are why they have such a low standard-of-living. They have NO incentive to excel and simply exist for the tribe (commune). Still, many expect the producers of the world to help them out. Sound familiar?
The aforementioned also includes early Native-Americans. Although they got a raw deal on occasion, they finally realized that capitalism is good with their numerous casinos/resorts. Good for them. Others above are still mired in their tribal mentality while trying to survive. Their self-induced loss.
This is not rocket surgery nor brain science...har. Even a high school dropout as myself (GED notwithstanding) can see the truth of human characteristics. We're all flawed, but with freedom, we all have the chance to excel, and by extension contribute to the betterment of mankind.
My bona fides to support my viewpoint of social/economics: I grew up on the streets of Los Angeles in the 60's from the quintessential broken home family of the time. I've lived in cars; garages (actually starved on occasion); worked manual labor as in low-wage widget factories and other; worked hard enough to afford a single room apartment. Then bought a modest house for my family with low Navy pay while eating Spagettios and cheese sandwiches. I took advantage of an opportunity to become the CEO of a very small business and retired at 47 due to my profitable policies and into a 3000sq house in one of the most expensive real estate areas in California. I'm now 62. I know something about life.
Am I intellectually gifted? - no. Am I educated? - no. Did I have opportunities in our society? - yes, and I recognized such for what they were and embraced them. I have little to no compassion for anyone who thinks the best thing they can do is to join a gang or impregnate a girl. I will end this rant before I say something that kicks me off this forum.
In that book, Mr. Evans posed the following questions which, if utilized, might encourage a level of discourse which can help Americans to evaluate the grave matters before us in terms of:
"1. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, individual freedom and creativity?
"2. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, the power of some citizens over other citizens?
"3. Does this legislation or idea recognize that the persons who will exercise the power are themselves imperfect human beings?
"4. Does this legislation or idea recognize that government is incapable of creating wealth?
"5. Does this legislation or idea authorize taking from some what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong?
If 'thou shalt not steal' is a valid commandment, can we assume that it is meant to apply only to individuals and not to government (which is made up of individuals), even if those persons in power pass laws which sanction such redistribution of the wealth of others?'
"6. Does this legislation or idea encourage, or discourage, the very highest level of morality and responsibility from the individual?
. . .when government makes actions 'legal' by some citizens at the expense of other citizens, the result may be behavior which would not be considered possible by individuals acting alone.
"7. Does this legislation or idea propose that the 'government' do something which the individual cannot do without committing a crime?"**
**7 principles drawn from James R. Evans book, "America's Choice," and reprinted in a Stedman Corporation (Asheboro, NC) booklet entitled "I'm Only One, What Can I Do?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.