Making a Relic of the Constitution

For the last 100 years our grand political debate has centered on the tension between the principles and mechanics of the Constitution and the ideals of the Progressive movement. Under FDR the Progressives became known as liberals, but the term ‘Progressivism’ has re-emerged under Hillary, who described herself as a Progressive Democrat in order to distinguish herself from the self-proclaimed socialist who has ‘trumped’ her party’s nomination process.

The early Progressives sought changes necessitated by rapid economic growth and industrialization. They regulated food and drugs, interstate commerce, labor laws, and successfully sought to break up monopolies and trusts that they thought had gained too much economic and political power. Woodrow Wilson believed in a unified will of the voters, molded by strong leaders, and a professionally staffed administrative institution to manage government much as the new managerial class was running large businesses.

Wilson was critical of the structural constraints of the Constitution designed by the Founders. The Progressives sought to tilt the balance of power substantially from the states to the federal government, contending that parochial interests centered in Congress made national action too difficult and incohesive.

Eventually the strong leaders and compliant courts succeeded in implementing the Progressive agenda. The administrative state became a large regulatory state and gave birth to the welfare state.

The first thing we have to do is ensure NO MORE USURPATIONS.

Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
Solely a US citizen. No other possibility of being anything else.
No foreign national births or parent(s) which bring foreign citizenship(s) negating natural born citizen status.

Natural born citizen was meant to be more restrictive than citizen, citizen at birth, native born or any other status.

The Kenyanesian Usurpation should be proof enough for anyone the wisdom of the founders in bequeathing us that protection if we are smart enough to insist on it.

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators

Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures. The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1826, but the idea did not gain considerable support until the late 19th century when several problems related to Senate elections had become evident. Several state legislatures deadlocked over the election of senators, which led to Senate vacancies lasting months and even years. In other cases, political machines gained control over state legislatures, and the Senators elected with their support were dismissed as puppets. In addition, the Senate was seen as a “millionaire's club” serving powerful private interests....

This is what you think will be constitutional nirvana if the 17th is repealed?

------

And there's this to disprove your deceptive "convention of states" scam:....

During the 1890s, the House of Representatives passed several resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment for the direct election of senators. Each time, however, the Senate refused to even take a vote. When it seemed unlikely that both houses of Congress would pass legislation proposing an amendment for direct election, many states changed strategies. Article V of the Constitution states that Congress must call a constitutional convention for proposing amendments (NOT A CONVENTION OF STATES) when two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one. Although the method had never previously been used, many states began sending Congress applications for conventions. As the number of applications neared the two-thirds bar, Congress finally acted....

These are the same kind of lies and deceptive practices used by the Fairtax scammers...how did that work out for you?

I am a naturalized citizen. On June 12 of this year it will be 39 years that I made my Citizenship in Junction City, KS. Both our son who was born in Germany in 1963 and daughter who was born also in Germany in 1970 in the same US Army hospital when my husband was station in Germany. My husband registered their birth with the American Consulate in Munich, Germany, when they were 6 weeks old and they were issued an American Birth Certificate.

They would have not gotten an American Birth certificate had the American Consulate considered ineligible due to that I was still a German National.

Since the Constitution acts directly on both the people and the states, both must be represented in the lawmaking body of the republic.

That's the single biggest misconception of how the Constitution was intended to work.

The only 'people' directly under the Constitution were the ones inside enumeration jurisdiction, such as in the federal enclave, where the federal Congress was supposed to act as a city council, or municipal entity.

James Madison Federalist #43 -
The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes,

----

Outside the areas of enumerated jurisdiction, the Constitution operated ONLY on the entities of the States, NOT on the People IN the States. To do so, in fact, was considered treason.

In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
Preliminary Remarks, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution

----

The State entities are the proxies that were SUPPOSED to stand between the People and the federal government and act as a Constitutional buffer to secure our Liberties.

The fact everyone seems to believe the federal government can control the entire country at will is the main reason tinkering with the Constitution is pointless, IMO.

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.