Replies

"My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant?"

No. They were unauthorized while their successors have been authorized, at least in theory.

Note the following:

ARTICLE (IX.)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ARTICLE (X.)

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.

One of the rights retained by the people would be the right to have their representatives act on their behalf. And since powers that are not delegated to the United States may be reserved to the people, the people must also have the right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish.

In brief, while the Founders had no authorization to do things that would fall within the category of "bread and circuses", if the people have the reserved power to do those things, they have the right to have the Founders successors do those things on their behalf, and by doing so the people give the Founders successors authorization.

All that is theory.

In actuality, I fear that instead of doing what the people want done, the Founders successors do what they themselves want to do and then tell the people what the people want.

Rights retained by the people, and powers that are retained by the states or the people are different than those that the "United States", meaning the Federal government, has the authority to utilize.

That authority is only obtained through the Constitution and the people have already indicated (through the original ratification process)that the only way to add to it is through the amendment process. Without an amendment, the people, through their federal representatives, are poweless to bequeath new powers to the Federal beheamouth.

So, the only way for the people, through their representatives to extend those rights, powers and priveleges to the United States is to do so through the amednment process of the Constitution. Any attempt to do it otherwise is illegal, null and void as far as law and theory go.

Reality says that since they are willing to enforce unconstitutional acts at the point of the sword/gun...that they have become the defacto law anyway, at least up until the point that the natural rights as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence come into play.

In brief, while the Founders had no authorization to do things that would fall within the category of "bread and circuses", if the people have the reserved power to do those things, they have the right to have the Founders successors do those things on their behalf, and by doing so the people give the Founders successors authorization.

Nonsense. If they desire that, they have been provided the means, it's called constitutional amendment.

In response to your posts 33 and 35:

What I set forth in my post 19 is based on Ammendments to the Constitution. I even quoted the ammendments in my post.

The required ammendments are already in place, unless the people have no retained right (under the Ninth Ammendment) to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power (under the Tenth Ammendment) to accomplish.