Posted on 03/06/2009 9:42:37 AM PST by MosesKnows
Article 1. Section 1. could have omitted those two words, “herein granted” and still established the Congress as the legislative branch of government.
Let’s begin by assuming that the words of Article 1. Section 1. are as follows :
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
If we can agree, just for a moment, that those are the words let’s see if we can find agreement on what the words mean.
The first word, all, is just as self explanatory now as it was in 1787. It means the total or the entire amount of something.
That “something” is found in the next words, legislative Powers. I believe that can only mean the power to enact laws.
The next words, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States suggest to me that the power to enact law is absolutely and without contingency the sole power of a Congress.
The closing words, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives define a Congress with two different groups of representatives.
It is therefore clear to me that Article 1. Section 1. created Congress as the only branch of the new central government with the power to enact law.
However, the words, herein granted, were included and the exact words of the ratified Constitution are as follows :
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
What do the words, herein granted imply? Why are the words there? I believe the words are there for a reason.
I believe the reason the words, Powers herein granted, were included is because the people in “We the people” wanted a new central government with limited powers over them. I believe people who just fought a lengthy and costly Revolutionary War to escape King George III’s unlimited power over them would not establish a new central government with unlimited powers over them. I believe they would create a government with only limited powers and they would carefully enumerate exactly what those powers are.
What do you think the reason is for the words herein granted?
Understanding that Article 1. Section 1. means Congress is only empowered with the herein granted Powers brings clarity to 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.
It is the herein granted powers that are delegated to the government by the Constitution. All powers not herein granted do not exist.
They are not stupid they are ignorant. That is why the control of the public school system is so important to the Bolsheviks.
>> My greater concern is why so many Americans stand silent.
Their vote preceded silence.
What’s this Constitution people keep talking about?
Is that one of those French bidet’s, or just something a person uses in it’s place.
What would you have us do? Your analysis is clear and irrefutable. And (no offense) irrelevant.
We’re fools if we trust those in power to restrain their own power. What part of “herein granted” don’t they understand? Oh, they understand it completely - and ignore it just as completely.
Their usurpation has, for all practical purposes, nullified and overthrown the Constitution. Oh, they’ll recite with feigned reverence whatever parts of it they find useful for their political ends. But even this fig leaf is becoming less and less necessary, as these revolutionaries are increasingly able to drum up enough support from their followers to keep them in power without having to pay lip-service and feign allegience to any so-called “Constitution”.
The final court of appeal, in any dispute, is force. And the national government has our nation at a disadvantage in that contest.
Not only that, but their divide-and-conquer strategy has been quite successful. And now, it seems, they aim to provoke an out-and-out armed fight with Americans, to justify their use of force to suppress dissent and accumulate even more power.
No, the Constitution, it seems to me, is rapidly becoming a non-factor in American politics - except as a reminder of what American government was once upon a time, and a lesson on what sort of restraints on power DON’T work.
>>No, the Constitution, it seems to me, is rapidly becoming a non-factor in American politics<<
They do so at their own peril. What is the logical outcome if the laws that govern us all are disregarded? Anarchy!
Ignore the Constitution and you sign your own (figuratively speaking, of course)death warrant.
on the contrary, it is tyranny.
When the laws restraining the governors are ignored, they exercise their power arbitrarily and visciously.
Ping.
You could make that same argument about nearly every revolution that has ever taken place, because every revolution overthrew the existing government. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a constitutional republic or a despotic dictatorship.
Sure, some degree of anarchy results from the upheaval, simply because there’s always an element of society looking for an excuse and an opportunity to run wild. How wide and deep the anarchy goes depends on many factors, of course.
We don’t believe it can happen here. Coups happen in faraway places, third-world countries. The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are likewise distant to us, fiction-like stories we read about but which (to our comprehension) almost didn’t really happen.
We have this irrational faith in the Constitution and in our Republic - as if the Constitution were Scripture itself and America were God’s invincible nation. Well it’s not and we’re not.
(The Constitution isn’t what preserved the Union in 1861-65. Force did - for better or worse.)
The overthrow of constitutional government in America has, until now, proceeded very slowly. Why have those in power today decided to pick up the pace? I wish I knew.
Their tactics aren’t hard to discern, but their strategy is.
Which again raises a simple point; that is, would most of us agree the Constitition was written so that The People could interpret AND understand it? And are The People not the final arbiters of what the Constitution means -- ultimately?
If this is true, and I believe it is, how do we proceed from here using this tool? OR, are we already past the point of gaining any ground by parsing the meaning of our Constitution?
Gotta go get a haricut before I have to put it up in dreadlocks or something.
YUP. Which means that we should be able to settle disputes individually with each other legally. It also means that if something is Unconstitutional (as the power resides in “We the people”) then we do not legally have an obligation to follow it (by our own reading-if reasonable).
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.