Posted on 02/22/2003 10:49:06 AM PST by forest
What do you think the Founding Fathers would say about the oppressive legislation, rules, regulations, and executive orders emanating from today's federal government? Luckily, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
Strong stuff! "No legislative act, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Hamilton may have been a lawyer and a politician, but there is certainly no equivocation there! That is quite a concept, especially coming from a man who actively participated in the Convention that wrote our Constitution.
A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues. This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. So too, will most federal subsidies."
I'd be for repealing the 16th and 17th Amendment, as the mission statement advocates.
As for the Second, it would suffice for citizens and government at all levels to be able to read and understand the phrase, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
To me, the 14th was the beginning of the end of our republic. You've basically applied a federal document to each and every state. You've made the states homogeneous.
Seems to me that you don't really want a return to a Constitutional republic -- just something a little bit closer to one.
As well they should be, else we revert to the Era of The Congressional Congress, prior to the establishment of the Consitution. Remember: E Pluribus Unum ("From many, one.")
As well they should be, else we revert to the Era of The Congressional Congress, prior to the establishment of the Consitution. Remember: E Pluribus Unum ("From many, one.")
You must mean it since you've posted it twice.
I don't want to go all the way back to 1775 -- how about 1867?
You insert the 14th amendment, and you don't have much of a tenth amendment to work with, do you?
With the 14th amendment, for example, the first amendment is whatever the federal government/USSC says it is. Without the 14th, each state decides. If a state says no topless bars, that's it, no topless bars and the feds can't do a thing about it.
If each state wanted those Bill of Rights, they could have written them into their state constitutions in 1776. They didn't, and for their own good reasons.
Why would protecting the basic rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights from state encrouchment be a bad thing? Affirming those rights for all Americans no matter what state they reside in is a good thing, IMO.
The problem is that the Feds are no longer restrained by the Constitution. The current "interpretation" of the welfare clause and the commerce clause is tantamount to saying that there is no limit on Federal authority and jurisdiction.
. I mean, you may read "free speech" as to allow all forms of pornography. There are those that do.
There is a good example. It is rediculous to argue the issue in the context of the First amendment. It is a private property issue. Free speech in the public square is obviously protected. But how is it the goverments buisness if a bar owner allows smoking or has waitresses that serve beer in the nude? It is the proprietors private property. Anyone who does not appreciate his services is free not to patronize his establishment. And he should be free to admit or not any customer he chooses.
The Constitution sets forth a few specific functions that the Feds can legitimatly do. I do not find education, welfare, environmental protection, or a myriad of other things in there that the Fed claims jurisdiction over in there.
I would contend that the founders fought a war over much less than we endure today.
The Tenth Amendment recognizes that powers can be forbidden to the States by the Constitution and it does not give permission for gun grabbers to use State laws to infringe on the people's RKBA.
Just like some portions of the Constitution restrict State powers, such as forbidding tarrifs, the Second Amendment settles the either/or question in the Tenth by specifically reserving the RKBA to the people, not the States.
You must mean it since you've posted it twice.
================
LOL! You flatter me, but, alas, no need to credit to resolve to what, in fact, was nothing but clumsliness on my part. IOW, I accidently hit the "post" button twice.
:)
Watch as the little yapping dogs of statism come hither and bite at your heels.
- or -
"What is our mission? Free Republic is dedicated to the protection of George Bush and Republicans, through the use of empowered cliques who can delete threads or have them banished from view, when they contain material uncomfortable to the status quo (as determined by the clique)."
I wonder which is more true now.
Actually, in America, We The People have always had three recourses intended by the Framers: The Ballot Box, The Jury Box, and The Cartridge Box.
Fully behind this, of course...
First, to clarify. The Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, was written to apply to the federal government only. Each state had it's own state constitution (and, of course, still does).
With the passage of the 14th amendment in 1868, the federal Bill of Rights (with some exceptions) now applied to every state. Prior to that, states were allowed to restrict speech. Also, states were allowed to have a state religion funded by the taxpayers. For example, until 1833, the Congregational Church was the official, tax-supported church of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
With that as a backdrop, I can answer your question. Adopting the federal Bill of Rights means that there is now only one standard for free speech, for example. States can no longer set their own laws for speech -- they must go with USSC rulings.
My example of topless dancing was not a private property issue. It was a "freedom of expression" issue. Since the courts have decided that topless dancing is a form of expression, it can't be banned. This means that it must be allowed in all 50 states.
Also, keep in mind that if state law conflicts with federal law, federal law prevails under Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, which is exactly what happened recently in California concerning marijuana. This means that the more the federal government is allowed to do, the more they will prevail if there is a conflict with state law. This is why federal power must be contained.
I fully agree with you that the owners of private property be allowed to do with it as they please. But, a commercial establishment is not really "private" property. The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 prohibited discrimination in "places of public accomodation" like bars. Again, I agree with you that the owner should be allowed to discriminate himself right out of business, if he is that stupid to do so. But he can't.
A good question. Another question would be, "Why didn't the Founders use the language of the Second amendment when writing the First?"
I don't know why they used the words they did. I do know that the Constituion, along with the Bill of Rights, only applied to the Federal Government. Each state was governed by it's own State Constitution.
I'll give it some thought and get back to you ... =)
trust all is well.
Of course I am, how else could change ever be effected? Such parties might be tried and convicted, a jury might nullify the charges, or if found guilty they might appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court and win. Sometimes cases are instigated to begin such processes.
If the federal government created a law that legislated surrender of all privately owned firearms, I certainly would not be the only person to resist. If the legislators crafted a law authorizing the seizure of all your propery at will would you resist? Or if they enacted legislating removal of your right to trial by jury? Or that you had no privacy anywhere in the search for terrorists? [spooky music playing ...]
The people of the several states can effect change by appeals, by removing legislators, judges and Presidents; or via Constitutional amendment. Our governement was made as a servant to the people - not to be omnipotent gods.
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.