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?"

KK writes:

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.
19 -KK-

KrisKrinkle wrote: 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.

You claim:

"-- They were unauthorized" --
-- "while their successors have been authorized, at least in theory."

Just above you base this claim on the 9th & 10th amendments which were in effect since we have had government.

Jeff and others have explained that 'they' have never been authorized to provide for today's "bread and circuses".

Quite simply there are no required amendments "already in place". Never have been.

-- The people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people wish. -- 'The people' are bound by our constitution, -- as are our fed/state/local governments.

The people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people wish. -- 'The people' are bound by our constitution, -- as are our fed/state/local governments.

I never maintained that the people have a retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people wish.

The argument is that the people have a retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish. As you say, “‘the people' are bound by our constitution, -- as are our fed/state/local governments” so they do not have the reserved power to accomplish whatever they wish.

Jeff and others have explained that 'they' have never been authorized to provide for today's "bread and circuses".

I’d say that they stated “…'they have never been authorized to provide for today's "bread and circuses"’ rather than that they explained it, though I guess they tried. The problem is that in trying to explain, they further stated (more or less) a necessity for amendments that I say already exist as the Ninth and Tenth.

A proper refutation of what I laid out, would have to start from the premise that the people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish. (Actually, there may be other proper refutations, but I can’t think of any offhand. If you've got them, please make them.)

Jeff said that was not his premise. On the other hand, you almost stated it except that you ended with “whatever the people wish” instead of “whatever the people have the reserved power to accomplish.” That’s a major difference and it turned the statement into something I was not trying to say and don’t want to defend.

Perhaps I should assume (though that’s dangerous) that you meant to write that “the people have no retained right to have their representatives act on their behalf to accomplish whatever the people themselves have the reserved power to accomplish.” If that’s the case, why should anyone accept that as valid in view of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which, without being specific, address the retained rights and reserved powers of the people?