The Final Authority on the Constitution
Many today think of the Supreme Court as the final authority on the Constitution. This was not the intention of those who wrote it. All three branches were to be responsible for upholding the Constitution, and the ultimate responsibility was to lie in the hands of those who established it – “We the People.”If we are to do our duty as a people, we need to understand how our Constitution has been undermined and how the judicial branch of government has played a role in that. To this purpose, I invite you to enroll in Hillsdale College’s new free online course, “The U.S. Supreme Court.”
This course will look at several of the most important cases in the Court’s history—cases that have had a dramatic effect on our politics and our society today. We will also look at the intended role of the Supreme Court, how that role has changed, and the ways in which that change has undermined our Constitution and our freedom.
I will deliver two of the course’s ten lectures, and the others by my colleagues on Hillsdale’s faculty. We will also have Q&A sessions after each lecture. The first lecture was released today—so you can start your course now.
Again, there is no cost to take the course and you can watch the lectures at your leisure.
You can activate your course here >>
Warm regards,
Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College
Pursuing Truth—Defending Liberty since 1844
This course will look at several of the most important cases in the Court’s history—cases that have had a dramatic effect on our politics and our society today. We will also look at the intended role of the Supreme Court, how that role has changed, and the ways in which that change has undermined our Constitution and our freedom.
I will deliver two of the course’s ten lectures, and the others by my colleagues on Hillsdale’s faculty. We will also have Q&A sessions after each lecture. The first lecture was released today—so you can start your course now.
Again, there is no cost to take the course and you can watch the lectures at your leisure.
You can activate your course here >>
Warm regards,
Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College
Pursuing Truth—Defending Liberty since 1844
Vattel, Mattel, Shmattel: Overruled by Constitution! Posted by Toddy Littman | Posted on 10 Feb : 05:30 |
Had to do it. Had to make sure you understand how meaningless Vattel is.
Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Please note the semicolon at the very end, not to be mistaken as a period...Continued:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...;”
Establish, per 1828 Websters:
“1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently...
“I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Genesis 17:7.
“3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, etc...
“8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.
“Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Romans 10:3.” --http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/establish
The point here is the power of a uniform Rule of Naturalization never existed in Congress prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Continental Congress of the Confederacy was virtually powerless, all it took was one state to reject any proposal and the proposal fails. I haven't reviewed this recently in the Federalist, yet seem to recall it was something explained in the first 10 of the Federalist Papers but I cannot recall exactly where at the time of writing this. That's fine as Hamilton provides a snippet here from Federalist 32:
“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [The unratified Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases:[1]where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; [2]where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; [3] and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT...These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances...The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE. -- Typographic emphasis mine,http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_32.html.
Notice the mention of States having this power being a problem? Now, often I hear, this has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizens, apparently the lack of comprehending the root of the words “Naturalization” and “Natural” is too confusing.
Let us turn to Madison, from Federalist 42, the paper explaining at its beginning how Art I, Sec 9 was placed in the Constitution to end slavery by 1808, apparently America's “uncaring white slave owner Founders” (as even I was taught) are a Progressive fiction of agenda imagination, however we'll be focusing on the latter part of this Federalist Paper:
“The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions [Apparently the most Emmerich De Vattel's Law of Nations influenced instrument]. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against.The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” -- Typographical emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html.
I hope you see what's coming...I don't care who was mentioned in the Constitution Convention nor how many times, as, in the end, the reality is: The text of the Constitution explains the objects and specific powers granted to government to achieve those objects, some exclusive, some shared, but authorized by ratification of the Constitution, and not existing as powers until then (much of that shared jurisdiction destroyed by the 17th Amendment which destroyed the influence of the residual Sovereignty of the States on the National Government in DC), and Our Founders articulated with intention to be so specific in the Constitution that the limits to the powers, and even the object entrusted to the National government are expressed by implication. Easily seen if one recognizes the directive language of the Constitution instead of accepting our Progressive education that “the people were granted rights from the Constitution” while the same Progressives argue the 2nd Amendment isn't on equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights, such is the Progressive way to destroy our knowledge and understanding of our unalienable Rights and replace them with an assertion of privileges by erroneous claims of rights granted from government as being violated by that same government... It'd be funny if it weren't such a mangled mindjob on us being carried on by those in government who believe their own lie, with exception of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus.
Now to the first act, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” done by Congress, shortly after the Constitution was Ratified (1790), an act later repealed (Note that after reading the next 5 acts to do the very same thing that also were repealed have the same “beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” (I call the “Born Abroad” provision), I decided it was a waste to look further than 20 years forward from the first act to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” since that repetition of a particular clause is synonymous with “establish” and explains that Vattel, as asserted by all these folks claiming concern about where Ted Cruz was born (who did nothing about the situation when Obama was the subject of the question)...That Vattel was rejected by Congress in carrying out its new Constitutional Art I, Sec 8 power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Dare I say, when you consider what Madison said in Federalist 42, Congress intentionally defied the asserted principle of Vattel, apparently the principle used in the Articles of Confederation:
Article 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Please note the semicolon at the very end, not to be mistaken as a period...Continued:
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...;”
Establish, per 1828 Websters:
“1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently...
“I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Genesis 17:7.
“3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, etc...
“8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.
“Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Romans 10:3.” --http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/establish
The point here is the power of a uniform Rule of Naturalization never existed in Congress prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The Continental Congress of the Confederacy was virtually powerless, all it took was one state to reject any proposal and the proposal fails. I haven't reviewed this recently in the Federalist, yet seem to recall it was something explained in the first 10 of the Federalist Papers but I cannot recall exactly where at the time of writing this. That's fine as Hamilton provides a snippet here from Federalist 32:
“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [The unratified Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases:[1]where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; [2]where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; [3] and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT...These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances...The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE. -- Typographic emphasis mine,http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_32.html.
Notice the mention of States having this power being a problem? Now, often I hear, this has nothing to do with Natural Born Citizens, apparently the lack of comprehending the root of the words “Naturalization” and “Natural” is too confusing.
Let us turn to Madison, from Federalist 42, the paper explaining at its beginning how Art I, Sec 9 was placed in the Constitution to end slavery by 1808, apparently America's “uncaring white slave owner Founders” (as even I was taught) are a Progressive fiction of agenda imagination, however we'll be focusing on the latter part of this Federalist Paper:
“The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions [Apparently the most Emmerich De Vattel's Law of Nations influenced instrument]. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against.The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” -- Typographical emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html.
I hope you see what's coming...I don't care who was mentioned in the Constitution Convention nor how many times, as, in the end, the reality is: The text of the Constitution explains the objects and specific powers granted to government to achieve those objects, some exclusive, some shared, but authorized by ratification of the Constitution, and not existing as powers until then (much of that shared jurisdiction destroyed by the 17th Amendment which destroyed the influence of the residual Sovereignty of the States on the National Government in DC), and Our Founders articulated with intention to be so specific in the Constitution that the limits to the powers, and even the object entrusted to the National government are expressed by implication. Easily seen if one recognizes the directive language of the Constitution instead of accepting our Progressive education that “the people were granted rights from the Constitution” while the same Progressives argue the 2nd Amendment isn't on equal footing with the rest of the Bill of Rights, such is the Progressive way to destroy our knowledge and understanding of our unalienable Rights and replace them with an assertion of privileges by erroneous claims of rights granted from government as being violated by that same government... It'd be funny if it weren't such a mangled mindjob on us being carried on by those in government who believe their own lie, with exception of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus.
Now to the first act, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” done by Congress, shortly after the Constitution was Ratified (1790), an act later repealed (Note that after reading the next 5 acts to do the very same thing that also were repealed have the same “beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” (I call the “Born Abroad” provision), I decided it was a waste to look further than 20 years forward from the first act to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” since that repetition of a particular clause is synonymous with “establish” and explains that Vattel, as asserted by all these folks claiming concern about where Ted Cruz was born (who did nothing about the situation when Obama was the subject of the question)...That Vattel was rejected by Congress in carrying out its new Constitutional Art I, Sec 8 power, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Dare I say, when you consider what Madison said in Federalist 42, Congress intentionally defied the asserted principle of Vattel, apparently the principle used in the Articles of Confederation:
I'll just type the part that rejects what people assert Vattel demands, even though Vattel's work was never Ratified as law in America, nor recognized by some Resolution in Congress for nobly influencing the Constitution, and I'll likely surmise that this is because the Constitution explained the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” for the first time in existence is, also for the first time, being vested in Congress after the Constitution is Ratified:
“...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” -- Statutes-At-Large, 1790, pgs 103-104.
The act is Congress using this power for the first time and defining a natural born citizen as close in time as the phrase was used in the Constitution, whether repealed or not is meaningless to understanding the gravity of context of the term in the Constitution as used, and that Congress’ establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization is entirely tied to what is a Natural Born Citizen according to Congress passing an act defining the very same, asserting their new power by their first act in and using the very same language.
And as the provision has continued to be a part of act after act for at least 20 years thereafter, it is simply a unicorn's dream or Progressive fairy dust to think some book by Vattel binds the Congress, a book never ratified by the People and never subjected to the Declaration of Independence scrutinizing principle of the Consent of the Governed for its every word, every jot and every tittle; and never a part of Republican (representative) government in being ratified by the States, thus never of any greater meaning than a 3rd in weight reference at its very best, and a very far cry from a document over and above our Constitution.
So can we put this to rest once and for all in realizing that until Congress exercised the power, Vattel had no meaning, and when their first and continuing exercise of the power appears to intentionally defy Vattel, that Vattel is rendered by Congress, who alone has the power under the Constitution, entirely meaningless and nugatory in relation to natural born citizens?
What is more significant, more important for us to have done and hopefully to decide to do (which Donald Trump in his boasted buying of politicians appears to have failed to place on the top of his priority list even after making such a stink about Obama's birth certificate & illegitimacy) is to have a national yet objective, similar to the Congressional Research Service or Congressional Budget Office, “Presidential Candidate Packet Submission Review Board” that is entirely objective and will verify in fact the veracity and certainty of information provided by anyone running for President of the United States, and reporting as to what of a candidate's packet submission meets the Constitutional Standard, and what does not, for the voters to review and decide for themselves.
I became aware of this lack of anyone to carry out an objective presidential candidate packet review from a CRS memo released prior to Obama finally sharing a birth certificate with the American People, that I'll quote here:
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate...[T]here is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.3
“3. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with the campaign finance provisions of federal law for candidates to federal office, and to administer and seek compliance with the provisions for public financing of the nomination and election of candidates for President, but has no duties or responsibilities with respect to judging or vetting qualifications or eligibility of candidates to federal office. 2 U.S.C. Section 437c.” [Do not think to shortcut the idea of having an objective body vet these packets, do not forget Lois Lerner worked for the Federal Election Commission in her past.]
Choice is simple: Jump up and down screaming “VATTEL SAYS...” or do something about the situation by making sure there's an objective body to vet candidates? The clarity that We the People haven't done the latter is fully expressed in those literally “exercising” the former.
As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
Toddy Littman
Source; http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.315
“...And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” -- Statutes-At-Large, 1790, pgs 103-104.
The act is Congress using this power for the first time and defining a natural born citizen as close in time as the phrase was used in the Constitution, whether repealed or not is meaningless to understanding the gravity of context of the term in the Constitution as used, and that Congress’ establishment of a uniform Rule of Naturalization is entirely tied to what is a Natural Born Citizen according to Congress passing an act defining the very same, asserting their new power by their first act in and using the very same language.
And as the provision has continued to be a part of act after act for at least 20 years thereafter, it is simply a unicorn's dream or Progressive fairy dust to think some book by Vattel binds the Congress, a book never ratified by the People and never subjected to the Declaration of Independence scrutinizing principle of the Consent of the Governed for its every word, every jot and every tittle; and never a part of Republican (representative) government in being ratified by the States, thus never of any greater meaning than a 3rd in weight reference at its very best, and a very far cry from a document over and above our Constitution.
So can we put this to rest once and for all in realizing that until Congress exercised the power, Vattel had no meaning, and when their first and continuing exercise of the power appears to intentionally defy Vattel, that Vattel is rendered by Congress, who alone has the power under the Constitution, entirely meaningless and nugatory in relation to natural born citizens?
What is more significant, more important for us to have done and hopefully to decide to do (which Donald Trump in his boasted buying of politicians appears to have failed to place on the top of his priority list even after making such a stink about Obama's birth certificate & illegitimacy) is to have a national yet objective, similar to the Congressional Research Service or Congressional Budget Office, “Presidential Candidate Packet Submission Review Board” that is entirely objective and will verify in fact the veracity and certainty of information provided by anyone running for President of the United States, and reporting as to what of a candidate's packet submission meets the Constitutional Standard, and what does not, for the voters to review and decide for themselves.
I became aware of this lack of anyone to carry out an objective presidential candidate packet review from a CRS memo released prior to Obama finally sharing a birth certificate with the American People, that I'll quote here:
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate...[T]here is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.3
“3. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with the campaign finance provisions of federal law for candidates to federal office, and to administer and seek compliance with the provisions for public financing of the nomination and election of candidates for President, but has no duties or responsibilities with respect to judging or vetting qualifications or eligibility of candidates to federal office. 2 U.S.C. Section 437c.” [Do not think to shortcut the idea of having an objective body vet these packets, do not forget Lois Lerner worked for the Federal Election Commission in her past.]
Choice is simple: Jump up and down screaming “VATTEL SAYS...” or do something about the situation by making sure there's an objective body to vet candidates? The clarity that We the People haven't done the latter is fully expressed in those literally “exercising” the former.
As always, May Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, Bless you and I thank you for reading and sharing this,
Toddy Littman
Source; http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.315
(Photo: Carol M. Highsmith/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
Heritage: The Constitution’s Lost Clauses
http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwnaqe_yYCOMMENTARY BY
Tiffany Bates / @TiffanyHBates / Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / October 29, 2015
Those who drafted the Constitution and subsequent amendments labored over every word that would be included in our charter of liberty. But today some clauses have limited application and others have been swept under the rug entirely. Have you ever heard of theContract Clause, the Coinage Clause, or the Origination Clause? The Pacific Legal Foundation is trying to make the latter a household name with its new challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
Another constitutional provision that is all but meaningless today is the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the 14th Amendment, which provides that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Since its ratification, this language has invited multiple interpretations. Some read it to empower courts to enforce previously unrecognized rights. Others limit it to a narrow category of rights, such as those found in the Bill of Rights, which courts cannot enlarge.
In 1873, five years after ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court read the clause quite narrowly, limiting it to a small category of rights. In the Slaughter-House Cases, butchers (among others) challenged Louisiana’s public health regulation that granted a semi-monopoly of the slaughterhouse industry in New Orleans to one company. The law permitted any butcher to come to that location and pay to use the facilities, but it forbade any butcher to maintain his own slaughterhouse.
The challengers argued this violated their right to earn a living under the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause could not grant them relief because it protected only rights “which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.” This included rights such as visiting the seat of government in Washington, D.C., access to courts and seaports, and protection of the federal government “when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government.” It did not, however, protect a citizen “against the legislative power of his own State” with regard to earning a living, because such rights were traditionally “left to the State governments for security and protection.”
For more than a century after the Slaughter-House Cases, how the Privileges or Immunities Clause should be read was of little interest to lawyers or academics. Except for one case which was quickly overturned, the Privileges or Immunities Clause laid dormant until 1999, when the Supreme Court held in Saenz v. Roe that the clause protected a right to travel that included the ability of citizens to move freely between states. The Saenz Court found that this right to travel encompassed a right of equal access to government welfare benefits for new state residents.
In 2010, Justice Clarence Thomas signaled he might be willing to revive the clause. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down a Chicago gun regulation, holding that the right to keep and bear arms is “fully applicable to the States” by way of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected the right to bear arms against state infringement, not the Due Process Clause.
This concurrence helped spur considerable debate among constitutional scholars over the clause’s proper interpretation. Many are re-examining whether the Court was correct about the scope of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases. Some call for the Court to resuscitate the clause to protect fundamental rights. Others fear reviving it would open the door to the judicial creation of new enforceable rights, such as free college tuition or a guaranteed annual income.
Does the clause authorize the courts to create new constitutional rights not elsewhere specified in the text of the Constitution? Is it limited to the narrow category of rights recognized in the Slaughter-House Cases? Should the Court reconsider the Slaughter-House Cases? Does Congress have a role to play – that is, can Congress identify “privileges and immunities” that the courts must protect?
Join us at the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 30 at noon for a debatebetween Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman and Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett, two distinguished constitutional law scholars, over the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The program also will be streamed on our website.
From 'The Daily Signal'
Concealed or open carry?
Good one!
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE EVER READ.
And, from a Marine! ! ! !
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much... Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.....
"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:reason and force . If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it .
In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force .
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded . I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced !!
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE EVER READ.
And, from a Marine! ! ! !
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much... Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.....
"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:reason and force . If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it .
In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force .
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded . I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced !!
THE STAGES OF FEDERALISM
FEDERALISM
Federalism is a political system in which power is divided and shared between the national/central
government and the states. This arrangement limits the power of government.
Over the years, the powers of the national government have increased tremendously at the expense
of the states. The Supreme Court has played a key role in defining the relationship and powers of
the national government through its broad interpretation of the supremacy and commerce clauses.
Stage 1: Dual Federalism (1789 – 1937)
Stage is called “dual federalism” because the functions of the state and national government
remained largely separate.
• Marshall Court
-Cases upheld expansive federal powers. They had a major impact on the balance of
power between the national and state governments.
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• Taney Court
• Different notion of federalism
• Belief that separate and equally powerful levels of government work best
• National government should not exceed its constitutionally enumerated powers
• Court tended to limit the national government’s authority in areas such as slavery
and civil rights
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
- Post Civil War Amendments
- Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Stage 2: Cooperative Federalism (1937 – 1963)
Stage is called “cooperative federalism” because the new programs of the “New Deal” require
cooperation across all levels of government.
• Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” sparks a revolution in national policy making and an
increased role for the national government altering the balance of power.
• Initially, the Supreme Court struck down New Deal programs, but in 1937 Supreme Court
changes course (court-packing plan).
SEE CHART at http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/stages.pdf
Stage 3: Regulated Federalism (1963 – 1981)
Stage is called “regulated federalism” because the national government further intervened in state
government decision-making by threatening to withhold federal grants for specific purposes.
• Categorical Grants were given to the states for specific purposes. Discretion largely
remains in the hands of federal and officeholders.
• Example: War on Poverty – in an effort to alleviate social ills that the states had been
unable or unwilling to remedy, Johnson Administration bypasses conservative legislatures
and administrators and gives money to constituencies that will spend it on urban renewal,
education, poverty programs, and job training.
• Example: to regulate speed limits within states, the national government threatens to
withhold federal transportation dollars thus forcing the states to comply with federal mandates.
• Unfunded mandates
• From the New Deal to the 1980’s, the Supreme Court expanded national powers and
restricted state power in their rulings.
Stage 4: New Federalism (1981 - ?)
Stage is called “new federalism” because it reflect
s the return of administrative powers to the state
governments. The federal-state relationship was proposed by Ronald Reagan during the 1980’s.
• Block Grants are given to states for general purposes and allow state officials greater
discretion over how funds will be spent, e.g. education, welfare.
• Reduced the size and power of the federal government.
• President Reagan used states rights as a litmus test for appointments.
• Bush Administration: federal government expands post 9/11
• Most Supreme Court decisions since 1989 have been 5-4 majorities in favor of states' rights.
• Bush Administration: federal government expands post 9/11.
SEE CHART at http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/stages.pdf
Dual federalism is a political arrangement in which power is divided between national and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the national government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which national and state governments collaborate on policy. Dual and cooperative federalism are also known as 'layer cake' and 'marble cake' federalism, respectively, due to the distinct layers of layer cake and the more muddled appearance of marble cake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism
Federalism is a political system in which power is divided and shared between the national/central
government and the states. This arrangement limits the power of government.
Over the years, the powers of the national government have increased tremendously at the expense
of the states. The Supreme Court has played a key role in defining the relationship and powers of
the national government through its broad interpretation of the supremacy and commerce clauses.
Stage 1: Dual Federalism (1789 – 1937)
Stage is called “dual federalism” because the functions of the state and national government
remained largely separate.
• Marshall Court
-Cases upheld expansive federal powers. They had a major impact on the balance of
power between the national and state governments.
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• Taney Court
• Different notion of federalism
• Belief that separate and equally powerful levels of government work best
• National government should not exceed its constitutionally enumerated powers
• Court tended to limit the national government’s authority in areas such as slavery
and civil rights
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
- Post Civil War Amendments
- Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Stage 2: Cooperative Federalism (1937 – 1963)
Stage is called “cooperative federalism” because the new programs of the “New Deal” require
cooperation across all levels of government.
• Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” sparks a revolution in national policy making and an
increased role for the national government altering the balance of power.
• Initially, the Supreme Court struck down New Deal programs, but in 1937 Supreme Court
changes course (court-packing plan).
SEE CHART at http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/stages.pdf
Stage 3: Regulated Federalism (1963 – 1981)
Stage is called “regulated federalism” because the national government further intervened in state
government decision-making by threatening to withhold federal grants for specific purposes.
• Categorical Grants were given to the states for specific purposes. Discretion largely
remains in the hands of federal and officeholders.
• Example: War on Poverty – in an effort to alleviate social ills that the states had been
unable or unwilling to remedy, Johnson Administration bypasses conservative legislatures
and administrators and gives money to constituencies that will spend it on urban renewal,
education, poverty programs, and job training.
• Example: to regulate speed limits within states, the national government threatens to
withhold federal transportation dollars thus forcing the states to comply with federal mandates.
• Unfunded mandates
• From the New Deal to the 1980’s, the Supreme Court expanded national powers and
restricted state power in their rulings.
Stage 4: New Federalism (1981 - ?)
Stage is called “new federalism” because it reflect
s the return of administrative powers to the state
governments. The federal-state relationship was proposed by Ronald Reagan during the 1980’s.
• Block Grants are given to states for general purposes and allow state officials greater
discretion over how funds will be spent, e.g. education, welfare.
• Reduced the size and power of the federal government.
• President Reagan used states rights as a litmus test for appointments.
• Bush Administration: federal government expands post 9/11
• Most Supreme Court decisions since 1989 have been 5-4 majorities in favor of states' rights.
• Bush Administration: federal government expands post 9/11.
SEE CHART at http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/stages.pdf
Dual federalism is a political arrangement in which power is divided between national and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the national government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which national and state governments collaborate on policy. Dual and cooperative federalism are also known as 'layer cake' and 'marble cake' federalism, respectively, due to the distinct layers of layer cake and the more muddled appearance of marble cake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism
These first four graphics are a quick look at how "critical" our Constitution is and why the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments need to be repealed.
We are continually adding information on these pages! Please review by scrolling down.
Lessons on The Preamble to the Constitution
Oh that it was that simple - first we must "TEACH THEM" the Constitution as they believe what they have been told by the Law Professors and the Usurping Justices. They need to be re-educated with what the Constitution actually says not what has been rewritten and twisted like the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare statement. We must keep in mind that the Preamble of the Constitution is not the law, it is to introduce the laws.
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitutional Topics pages at the US Constitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution — the "why" of the document.
________________________________________
The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
The Preamble; the newly minted document began with a grand flourish and was intended to introduce the Constitution - it is not a statement of rights on its own...., it is the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.
We the People of the United States
The Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.
in Order to form a more perfect Union
The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.
establish Justice
Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.
insure domestic Tranquility
One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.
provide for the common defence
The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitutional Topics pages at the US Constitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution — the "why" of the document.
________________________________________
The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
The Preamble; the newly minted document began with a grand flourish and was intended to introduce the Constitution - it is not a statement of rights on its own...., it is the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.
We the People of the United States
The Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.
in Order to form a more perfect Union
The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.
establish Justice
Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.
insure domestic Tranquility
One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers known as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.
provide for the common defence
The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.
promote the general Welfare
This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
Article I follows the above and that is the first part of the Constitution and its limits on government. IMO the Preamble has no force of law but is introductory to the law of the land and the establishment of the RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT RULE - BY - MAN that a democracy would use.
This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).
Article I follows the above and that is the first part of the Constitution and its limits on government. IMO the Preamble has no force of law but is introductory to the law of the land and the establishment of the RULE - BY - LAW AND NOT RULE - BY - MAN that a democracy would use.
Review of the Constitution item by item as to limits and powers.
The Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Clearly it says the power to create the Union [Compact] came from the People. So We the People have ownership as we created the UNION. We hold the power over government.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
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.
All Powers are vested in the Congress - - no mention of the Courts having powers to make laws or legislate from the bench.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Clearly it says the power to create the Union [Compact] came from the People. So We the People have ownership as we created the UNION. We hold the power over government.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
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.
All Powers are vested in the Congress - - no mention of the Courts having powers to make laws or legislate from the bench.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Notes for this section:
The Census
The House
FAQ: How is the per-representative population determined?
FAQ: Where in the Constitution is slavery implied?
FAQ: Can an ex-President be in Congress?
14th Amendment
No powers granted here - just limits who is qualified and how they are selected.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Notes for this section:
The Senate
FAQ: Can an ex-President be in Congress?
FAQ: What are the powers of the Vice President in the Senate?
FAQ: Can Congress declare war for any reason?
17th Amendment
Again only powers to try Impeachments granted only limits on numbers of Senators and how long they serve. The 17th changed to direct election from legislative selection by the States.
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Notes for this section:
The Census
The House
FAQ: How is the per-representative population determined?
FAQ: Where in the Constitution is slavery implied?
FAQ: Can an ex-President be in Congress?
14th Amendment
No powers granted here - just limits who is qualified and how they are selected.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Notes for this section:
The Senate
FAQ: Can an ex-President be in Congress?
FAQ: What are the powers of the Vice President in the Senate?
FAQ: Can Congress declare war for any reason?
17th Amendment
Again only powers to try Impeachments granted only limits on numbers of Senators and how long they serve. The 17th changed to direct election from legislative selection by the States.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Notes for this section:
20th Amendment
Again it limits acts and defines the limits of Congress to change Laws and or regulations. Notice that any changes to this point were done by Amendment.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Again we find limits and no hint of extending any powers by rules or laws.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 6 - Compensation
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.)They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Notes for this section:
27th Amendment
Again we find limits but no open area to increase powers or make exceptions.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every
Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment, prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Notes for this section:
FAQ: Can the Senate originate a spending bill?
List of Presidential Vetoes
We see only limits and rules without choices . . excludes the President from some option by a 2/3rds vote. This is why the President is not involved in an Article V amendment process.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Notes for this section:
Citizenship
The Draft
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: Why was the power to coin money given to the Federal Government?
FAQ: Who can declare war?
Limits on the things Congress and the Government can do . . it gives no language that allows the Congress or the Courts to expand meaning of clauses or to modernize.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Notes for this section:
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: What is habeas corpus?
16th Amendment
All Limits except Rebellion or Invasion some powers are then open as to Writ of Habeas Corpus. All No, No, No.
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Notes for this section:
20th Amendment
Again it limits acts and defines the limits of Congress to change Laws and or regulations. Notice that any changes to this point were done by Amendment.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Again we find limits and no hint of extending any powers by rules or laws.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 6 - Compensation
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.)They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Notes for this section:
27th Amendment
Again we find limits but no open area to increase powers or make exceptions.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every
Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment, prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Notes for this section:
FAQ: Can the Senate originate a spending bill?
List of Presidential Vetoes
We see only limits and rules without choices . . excludes the President from some option by a 2/3rds vote. This is why the President is not involved in an Article V amendment process.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Notes for this section:
Citizenship
The Draft
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: Why was the power to coin money given to the Federal Government?
FAQ: Who can declare war?
Limits on the things Congress and the Government can do . . it gives no language that allows the Congress or the Courts to expand meaning of clauses or to modernize.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Notes for this section:
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: What is habeas corpus?
16th Amendment
All Limits except Rebellion or Invasion some powers are then open as to Writ of Habeas Corpus. All No, No, No.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Again we see that even when the States are mentioned it is to limit powers not expand or grant powers.
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Notes for this section:
Separation of Powers
Note
The Electoral College
12th Amendment
20th Amendment
25th Amendment
Still all limits no extensions of powers, limits on whom what and where.
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The first time Congress has been given some options and other powers that might be given to the Executive or kept by Congress but again it is limit on the President and his appointments.
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Again a limit on Congress . . SHALL be removed from office . . . upon . . .
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Congress CONTROLS courts . . they are there to limit courts acts.
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Again we see that even when the States are mentioned it is to limit powers not expand or grant powers.
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Notes for this section:
Separation of Powers
Note
The Electoral College
12th Amendment
20th Amendment
25th Amendment
Still all limits no extensions of powers, limits on whom what and where.
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The first time Congress has been given some options and other powers that might be given to the Executive or kept by Congress but again it is limit on the President and his appointments.
Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Again a limit on Congress . . SHALL be removed from office . . . upon . . .
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Congress CONTROLS courts . . they are there to limit courts acts.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Notes for this section:
11th Amendment
Here we see major limits on what courts can do and which type cases they can be involved in - notice there is no power of Judicial Review, Interpretation of the Constitution, no power to have any sway over any State matter outside the original Constitution. The courts were to hold sway of neither the Sword [Executive] nor the Purse [Legislature] they were to be weak or they would become kings and queens in robes.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Notes for this section:
Note
Again Congress is given a power . . but still limited on how, what and why. No ability to expand powers.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Notes for this section:
11th Amendment
Here we see major limits on what courts can do and which type cases they can be involved in - notice there is no power of Judicial Review, Interpretation of the Constitution, no power to have any sway over any State matter outside the original Constitution. The courts were to hold sway of neither the Sword [Executive] nor the Purse [Legislature] they were to be weak or they would become kings and queens in robes.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Notes for this section:
Note
Again Congress is given a power . . but still limited on how, what and why. No ability to expand powers.
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
A limit on the States to withhold information from other States.
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
Notes for this section:
13th Amendment
Again they limit powers and used the 13th amendment to free those held to service or labour.
Article 4 - The States
Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
More limits on powers and rights of governments - no new or extended powers.
Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article 5 - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Notes for this article:
Note
Amending the Constitution
State Amendment Ratifications - Grid
Ratification Conventions
Again we find the friend of the PEOPLE more limitations and now a way to correct mistakes, modernize and stop USURPING or any tyranny and/or oppression by the Many State Legislatures taking action to reign in a runaway Federal Government, Legislature, Executive or Judicial - this is the only way to change alter, modify the Constitution. Notice there is no exception or other way authorized - no Judicial Review, no Judicial findings that created new rights or powers not stated in the first four Articles.
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Now we see more limits - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . . all limited by the first five Articles. so, no law or Treaty that exceeds the limits of the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION are valid . . and all officers are sworn to defend the Constitution Humm, do they really keep that pledge now that you have read the entire Constitution?
All can clearly see that if the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers intended the Constitution to be a frame work and not a says what it means and means what it says document why did they put all these limits on Government and the Courts? Why did they put in the Article V amendment process if they saw the Constitution as open and living evolving directive. Again those that desire more power than is available just invent new definitions and install new words where there are none; these are usurpers pure and simple . . they want what they know the State legislatures will not grant them in a amendment so they use money to bribe voting blocks, government Unions, Corporations, courts, cities, counties, Parishes, and even States with the money the government took from the citizens in the form of taxes.
Read the amendments and we shall go through them one by one and discover that they are to protect the States and the people form the government. They grant no powers to exceed the Limits of Article I section 8 and Article II and Article III.
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all Others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
A limit on the States to withhold information from other States.
Article 4 - The States
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
Notes for this section:
13th Amendment
Again they limit powers and used the 13th amendment to free those held to service or labour.
Article 4 - The States
Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
More limits on powers and rights of governments - no new or extended powers.
Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article 5 - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Notes for this article:
Note
Amending the Constitution
State Amendment Ratifications - Grid
Ratification Conventions
Again we find the friend of the PEOPLE more limitations and now a way to correct mistakes, modernize and stop USURPING or any tyranny and/or oppression by the Many State Legislatures taking action to reign in a runaway Federal Government, Legislature, Executive or Judicial - this is the only way to change alter, modify the Constitution. Notice there is no exception or other way authorized - no Judicial Review, no Judicial findings that created new rights or powers not stated in the first four Articles.
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Now we see more limits - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . . all limited by the first five Articles. so, no law or Treaty that exceeds the limits of the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION are valid . . and all officers are sworn to defend the Constitution Humm, do they really keep that pledge now that you have read the entire Constitution?
All can clearly see that if the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers intended the Constitution to be a frame work and not a says what it means and means what it says document why did they put all these limits on Government and the Courts? Why did they put in the Article V amendment process if they saw the Constitution as open and living evolving directive. Again those that desire more power than is available just invent new definitions and install new words where there are none; these are usurpers pure and simple . . they want what they know the State legislatures will not grant them in a amendment so they use money to bribe voting blocks, government Unions, Corporations, courts, cities, counties, Parishes, and even States with the money the government took from the citizens in the form of taxes.
Read the amendments and we shall go through them one by one and discover that they are to protect the States and the people form the government. They grant no powers to exceed the Limits of Article I section 8 and Article II and Article III.
Review of the Amendments
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Topic: Religion
Topic: Student Rights
An Interview with John Stuart Mill
Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli
Direct LIMITS on Congress and the making of laws . .
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Congress nor any other branch can INFRINGE of the right to bear arms - again a limit on government. Check the definitions of arms and infringe in the 1828 dictionary. The people can have cannons, grenades, rockets, mortars, guns, bombs and other defensive or offensive weapons.
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Direct limit on government actions.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Topic: Religion
Topic: Student Rights
An Interview with John Stuart Mill
Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli
Direct LIMITS on Congress and the making of laws . .
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Congress nor any other branch can INFRINGE of the right to bear arms - again a limit on government. Check the definitions of arms and infringe in the 1828 dictionary. The people can have cannons, grenades, rockets, mortars, guns, bombs and other defensive or offensive weapons.
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Direct limit on government actions.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
More limits on government acts - government cannot violate RIGHTS that came from the Creator not government.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without
due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Limits on government again . . they cannot take our property even for national good without just compensation . . how about progressive income tax now they take from one to give to another without just compensation for the taking?
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Again a limit on Courts and laws.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
More limits on government acts - government cannot violate RIGHTS that came from the Creator not government.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without
due process
of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Limits on government again . . they cannot take our property even for national good without just compensation . . how about progressive income tax now they take from one to give to another without just compensation for the taking?
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Again a limit on Courts and laws.
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Another limit on the government and courts.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Again limits on the government, clearly the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers did not trust government of courts.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ratified 12/15/1791
Limits on government and courts on their ability to define or limit natural rights from the Creator which are unlimited.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
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.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Another limit on the government and courts.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Again limits on the government, clearly the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers did not trust government of courts.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ratified 12/15/1791
Limits on government and courts on their ability to define or limit natural rights from the Creator which are unlimited.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
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.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
Note
Direct evidence that the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers only delegated LIMITED powers to the United States and all other rights were reserved - no language that the Congress or the courts can create new rights or limit existing rights - ONLY States can do that.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed: 3/4/1794
Ratified 2/7/1795
Note
History
Article 3, Section 2
Amendment 11 — Judicial Powers construed.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
This Amendment was designed to prevent a citizen of one state from bringing suit against another state in federal court, modifying Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1. Over time, it has also been construed to prevent citizens of a state from bringing theirown state to federal court. 11th Amendment law is in a resurgence in the 1990's as several Supreme Court cases make their mark (see the Current News Page).
11th Amendment
The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419) in 1793 (see the Events Page for details). Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed: 3/4/1794
Ratified 2/7/1795
Note
History
Article 3, Section 2
Amendment 11 — Judicial Powers construed.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
This Amendment was designed to prevent a citizen of one state from bringing suit against another state in federal court, modifying Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1. Over time, it has also been construed to prevent citizens of a state from bringing theirown state to federal court. 11th Amendment law is in a resurgence in the 1990's as several Supreme Court cases make their mark (see the Current News Page).
11th Amendment
The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419) in 1793 (see the Events Page for details). Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.
In Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]), the passage and ratification of the 11th was challenged for two reasons. First because the President did not sign the amendment bill, and second because the amendment presented a situation where people had some legal relief before ratification that dried up after, creating an ex post facto situation. The Supreme Court rejected both challenges, setting some important precedent for future amendments.
This one limited the courts.
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 12/9/1803
Ratified 6/15/1804
Note
12th Amendment
The Constitution was written before parties were a player in American politics. When John Adams was chosen for President in the 1796 election, the second-place candidate, Thomas Jefferson, became Vice President — but Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. The two clashed several times during Adams's presidency, though Adams's conflicts with Hamilton, a Federalist, too, probably caused Adams more concern.
In the election of 1800, the flaws of the original system became more than apparent. Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got 73 votes in the Electoral College, forcing the House of Representatives to choose. The problem? Both Jefferson and Burr were candidates of the same party, with Burr chosen to be the Vice President; some states preferred Burr, and neither was able to get the required majority until the stalemate was ultimately broken.
The result was the 12th Amendment, approved in Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804 (189 days), in time for the new process to be in place for the 1804 election. With the 12th, Electors are directed to vote for a President and for a Vice President rather than for two choices for President.
Proof that the Article V amendment process works to make corrections and eliminate problems or conflicts as was intended.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 1/31/1865
Ratified 12/6/1865
History
Article 4, Section 2
Again proof that the Article V amendment process can fix wrongs and congress was to make laws for the specific Article - not broad powers.
This one limited the courts.
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 12/9/1803
Ratified 6/15/1804
Note
12th Amendment
The Constitution was written before parties were a player in American politics. When John Adams was chosen for President in the 1796 election, the second-place candidate, Thomas Jefferson, became Vice President — but Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican. The two clashed several times during Adams's presidency, though Adams's conflicts with Hamilton, a Federalist, too, probably caused Adams more concern.
In the election of 1800, the flaws of the original system became more than apparent. Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got 73 votes in the Electoral College, forcing the House of Representatives to choose. The problem? Both Jefferson and Burr were candidates of the same party, with Burr chosen to be the Vice President; some states preferred Burr, and neither was able to get the required majority until the stalemate was ultimately broken.
The result was the 12th Amendment, approved in Congress on December 9, 1803, and ratified on June 15, 1804 (189 days), in time for the new process to be in place for the 1804 election. With the 12th, Electors are directed to vote for a President and for a Vice President rather than for two choices for President.
Proof that the Article V amendment process works to make corrections and eliminate problems or conflicts as was intended.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 1/31/1865
Ratified 12/6/1865
History
Article 4, Section 2
Again proof that the Article V amendment process can fix wrongs and congress was to make laws for the specific Article - not broad powers.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 6/13/1866
Ratified 7/9/1868
Note
History
Article 1, Section 2
Amendment 14 — Due Process
This is one of the most used (and, perhaps, misused) parts of the Constitution. It came out of the Civil War. Basically, it says that all men 21 or older will be counted to determine representation in Congress, with a reduction in that count for anyone not allowed to vote; that no one in the Confederate government (or any future government of insurrection) may be members of the U.S. government (unless approved by a two-thirds vote); and that all debts incurred by the U.S. to fight the Confederacy are to be paid, but none of those incurred by the Confederacy would be.
It also states that no State shall make any law abridging the rights of any of its citizens without due process of law. The 14th Amendment is important, but the first clause is the most important. Prior to the 14th, states were free to ignore the Bill of Rights; a series of Supreme Court rulings made it clear that the Bill was to apply to acts of the Federal Government only. With the establishment of the 14th, the Bill, or at least parts of it, is made to apply to state law, too. This clause has resulted in some good law, such as the Voting Rights Act. But States' Rights proponents are opposed to the Amendment in parts and/or as a whole.
The Supreme Court, at first, did not allow the Due Process clause to be used to expand individual liberties (1870's and 1880's). Eventually, though, it was used to protect more than just former slaves. In the 1900's and 1930's, it extended the clause to the protection of workers against state regulations, allowing national standards for work conditions and minimum wage to be set. The due process clause has been used to extend most Bill of Rights Amendments to some extent, and is the basis for the "Right to Privacy" extended in the infamous Roe v Wade decision. For a discussion, see this document.
My opinion? Well, the Supreme Court, in the end, is the legal arbiter of Constitutional interpretation. What they say goes. In my research, I found some cases that I agreed with and some that I did not. In general, however, I can say that I feel that as long as those rights don't impinge on another individual's rights, the rights of the individual must outweigh those of the state, and the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that.
Note: some have tried to argue that because of the representation reduction clause and the implications on States' Rights, that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. However, since it is an amendment to the Constitution, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional. Some argue that it was passed in an unconstitutional way, which is an interesting and plausible argument. The fact remains, however, that it is a part of our Constitution, and deserves as much respect as any other part, unless it is at some point repealed.
Surly the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers did not intend the Bill Of Rights to apply to the States or they would have so stated . . this has been the cause of the most Judicial mischief - from busing to school admissions, Roe V Wade, Due process is a red herring and a mistake as most State constitutions have their own bill of rights as the founders intended. The 14th was a political statement that was poorly crafted or very cleverly crafted depending on your point of view. Clearly there is much conflict with how it is being applied creating entire new bodies of law where no language authorizes that action.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 2/26/1869
Ratified 2/3/1870
History
Again we see a political bill to continue to punish the south for all areas of the entire constitution applied to all CITIZENS EQUALLY so none could be isolated and punished by laws. However, the supporters of political Constitutional amendments protecting minorities have no such interest in protecting the top 5% of the income earners from being abused and discriminated against by the tax laws so as we see it is all politics not sound law.
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
Appears not to have any language that permits the PROGRESSIVE RATE income tax structure and might be considered as a unlawful TAKING OF PROPERTY under the 5th amendment. In the Founders time all assets, money profits from business, land, houses, incomes, were "PROPERTY." Therefore there might be a conflict in the Constitution and the tax laws as enforced?
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 5/13/1912
Ratified 4/8/1913
History
Article 1, Section 3
17th Amendment
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.
The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).
This amendment has proven to be a very bad mistake as it NATIONALIZED the Federal Government - the States legislatures no longer had as seat at the table. Popular Election of Senators has created a group of elected official that serve for decades without change and often vote to approve legislation that harms their home State. Prior to the 17th that Senator would have been brought back before the State Legislators to explain the vote . . they would have been replaced for sure. It is a source of vote buying - if some Senator needs to be persuaded they simply take money from other States and redistribute it to the needed vote Senator's State. Look at the health care bill many in Congress were bought off their home State desires.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 12/18/1917
Ratified 1/16/1919
Repealed by the 21st Amendment, 12/5/1933
History
Some say this happened because many men were off to war . . it was again a mistake and would be corrected by Article V.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 6/13/1866
Ratified 7/9/1868
Note
History
Article 1, Section 2
Amendment 14 — Due Process
This is one of the most used (and, perhaps, misused) parts of the Constitution. It came out of the Civil War. Basically, it says that all men 21 or older will be counted to determine representation in Congress, with a reduction in that count for anyone not allowed to vote; that no one in the Confederate government (or any future government of insurrection) may be members of the U.S. government (unless approved by a two-thirds vote); and that all debts incurred by the U.S. to fight the Confederacy are to be paid, but none of those incurred by the Confederacy would be.
It also states that no State shall make any law abridging the rights of any of its citizens without due process of law. The 14th Amendment is important, but the first clause is the most important. Prior to the 14th, states were free to ignore the Bill of Rights; a series of Supreme Court rulings made it clear that the Bill was to apply to acts of the Federal Government only. With the establishment of the 14th, the Bill, or at least parts of it, is made to apply to state law, too. This clause has resulted in some good law, such as the Voting Rights Act. But States' Rights proponents are opposed to the Amendment in parts and/or as a whole.
The Supreme Court, at first, did not allow the Due Process clause to be used to expand individual liberties (1870's and 1880's). Eventually, though, it was used to protect more than just former slaves. In the 1900's and 1930's, it extended the clause to the protection of workers against state regulations, allowing national standards for work conditions and minimum wage to be set. The due process clause has been used to extend most Bill of Rights Amendments to some extent, and is the basis for the "Right to Privacy" extended in the infamous Roe v Wade decision. For a discussion, see this document.
My opinion? Well, the Supreme Court, in the end, is the legal arbiter of Constitutional interpretation. What they say goes. In my research, I found some cases that I agreed with and some that I did not. In general, however, I can say that I feel that as long as those rights don't impinge on another individual's rights, the rights of the individual must outweigh those of the state, and the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that.
Note: some have tried to argue that because of the representation reduction clause and the implications on States' Rights, that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. However, since it is an amendment to the Constitution, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional. Some argue that it was passed in an unconstitutional way, which is an interesting and plausible argument. The fact remains, however, that it is a part of our Constitution, and deserves as much respect as any other part, unless it is at some point repealed.
Surly the Founders - Framers - Ratifiers did not intend the Bill Of Rights to apply to the States or they would have so stated . . this has been the cause of the most Judicial mischief - from busing to school admissions, Roe V Wade, Due process is a red herring and a mistake as most State constitutions have their own bill of rights as the founders intended. The 14th was a political statement that was poorly crafted or very cleverly crafted depending on your point of view. Clearly there is much conflict with how it is being applied creating entire new bodies of law where no language authorizes that action.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 2/26/1869
Ratified 2/3/1870
History
Again we see a political bill to continue to punish the south for all areas of the entire constitution applied to all CITIZENS EQUALLY so none could be isolated and punished by laws. However, the supporters of political Constitutional amendments protecting minorities have no such interest in protecting the top 5% of the income earners from being abused and discriminated against by the tax laws so as we see it is all politics not sound law.
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
Appears not to have any language that permits the PROGRESSIVE RATE income tax structure and might be considered as a unlawful TAKING OF PROPERTY under the 5th amendment. In the Founders time all assets, money profits from business, land, houses, incomes, were "PROPERTY." Therefore there might be a conflict in the Constitution and the tax laws as enforced?
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 5/13/1912
Ratified 4/8/1913
History
Article 1, Section 3
17th Amendment
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.
The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).
This amendment has proven to be a very bad mistake as it NATIONALIZED the Federal Government - the States legislatures no longer had as seat at the table. Popular Election of Senators has created a group of elected official that serve for decades without change and often vote to approve legislation that harms their home State. Prior to the 17th that Senator would have been brought back before the State Legislators to explain the vote . . they would have been replaced for sure. It is a source of vote buying - if some Senator needs to be persuaded they simply take money from other States and redistribute it to the needed vote Senator's State. Look at the health care bill many in Congress were bought off their home State desires.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 12/18/1917
Ratified 1/16/1919
Repealed by the 21st Amendment, 12/5/1933
History
Some say this happened because many men were off to war . . it was again a mistake and would be corrected by Article V.
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 3/2/1932
Ratified 1/23/1933
History
Article 1, Section 4
Article 2, Section 1
20th Amendment
The term "Lame Duck" originates in the mid 1700's. It is applied to an elected official who has not been reelected, but still holds office. For example, in the United States today, the President is elected in November, and inaugurated in January of the following year — the time in between if the President was not reelected, is the lame duck period. Early in the political history of the nation, the period between the election and swearing-in of elected officials was a small issue. With slow methods of transportation and the nature of the politician in the 18th century, the lame duck period was almost a necessity. In fact, once the November election was established, it was more than a year before newly elected congressmen met in December.
But from the start, the lame duck period was a problem, most famously illustrated in the Marbury v Madison case, where lame-duck appointments by out-going President John Adams set the stage for a landmark Supreme Court decision with his series of late-night, last-minute appointments. The 20th Amendment cleared up this problem to a degree, by shortening the lame duck period. The Congress is sworn in on January 3 following the election, and the President is sworn in on January 20, rather than the March 4th prescribed in the 12th Amendment. The Amendment also closes a gap in Presidential power by specifying what will happen if a President-elect dies before he is sworn in. The 20th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 2, 1932, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1933 (327 days).
The 20th reached some notoriety during the impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton in 1998; the final House vote was taken after the 1998 elections, and the Senate was not scheduled to hear the case until after the swearing-in of the next Congress in 1999. Arguments that the 20th conceptually required a revote by the new House were fruitless, however.
Mostly a house cleaning issue because the Political class does not give up power without trying to get their way up to the last minute.
Amendment 21 - 18th Amendment Repealed
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 2/20/1933
Ratified 12/5/1933
History
21st Amendment
It would be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment was completely ineffective. It would also be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment caused the lawlessness embodied by people like Al Capone. The 18th Amendment did reduce alcohol consumption in the United States, and it did not cause organized crime. In the Prohibition era, alcohol consumption (measured in gallons of ethanol consumed) dropped to an average of less than a gallon per person per year, down from two and a half gallons in 1915. And organized crime existed before Prohibition, and existed after it, too.
That having been said, the Prohibition era did have a certain sense of lawlessness; the very fact that consumption was not eliminated is testimony to that; and the fact that organized crime manufactured and distributed the bulk of the illicit alcohol of the 1920's and early 1930's is evidence that gangsters were aided by Prohibition. Enforcement was spotty, with stills and speakeasies popping up in every population center. Over-zealous police and federal agents violated civil rights when searching for and destroying the paraphernalia of alcohol. While most Americans respected the law, were in favor of the law, the shine of "dry" began to wear off, especially as the Great Depression set in.
A movement began to form to repeal the 18th Amendment. Prohibition of alcohol was seen as an affront to personal liberty, pushed on the nation by religious moralists. Alcohol was also seen as a source of revenue for the local and national governments. The effort to elect "wet" legislators was as grand as that to elect "dry" ones almost two decades earlier. The Congress passed the amendment on February 20, 1933 (288 days). It mandated, for the first time, that conventions of the states were to vote on the amendment, rather than the legislatures, feeling that conventions would be more apt to vote to ratify - and they did, quickly — the ratification process was complete on December 5, 1933. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, the first time an amendment had been repealed by another.
Clearly this proves that Amendment by State conventions will not run away and can be a single issue as this one was. Con Con fear mongers are just wrong on the facts and wrong on the history.
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 3/21/1947
Ratified 2/27/1951
History
22nd Amendment
Since the presidency of George Washington, only one thing could be said to be totally consistent — that no President had the job for more than two full terms. Washington had been asked to run for a third term in 1796, but he made it quite clear that he had no intention of doing so; that an orderly transition of power was needed to set the Constitution in stone. And so it was for almost 150 years.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected President in 1932, and re-elected in 1936. When it came time for the Democrats to nominate a candidate for the Presidency in 1940, two things had happened. First, the Republicans had made great gains in Congress in the 1938 elections. And Hitler happened. Europe was in the throes of a great war, with trouble in the Pacific, too. A change away from Roosevelt, who had led the nation through the Great Depression, did not seem wise. He was nominated for an unprecedented third term, and won. It was not a landslide victory, however, and it is debatable that FDR would have had a third term had it not been for the war. When 1944 rolled around, changing leaders in the middle of World War II, which the United States was now fully engaged in, also seemed unwise, and FDR ran for and was elected to, a fourth term.
His life was nearly over, however, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, became President upon FDR's death less than 100 days after his inauguration. Though FDR's leadership was seen by many as a key reason that the U.S. came out of WWII victorious, the Congress was determined, once the war ended, to ensure that Washington's self-imposed two-term limit become the law of the land. Specifically excepting Truman from its provisions, the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947. After Truman won a second term in 1948, it was ratified on February 27, 1951 (1,439 days). Truman could have run for a third term, but bowed out early before campaigning began.
More evidence that the Political class does not give up power unless forced to yield or be destroyed.
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Notes for this amendment: Proposed 3/2/1932
Ratified 1/23/1933
History
Article 1, Section 4
Article 2, Section 1
20th Amendment
The term "Lame Duck" originates in the mid 1700's. It is applied to an elected official who has not been reelected, but still holds office. For example, in the United States today, the President is elected in November, and inaugurated in January of the following year — the time in between if the President was not reelected, is the lame duck period. Early in the political history of the nation, the period between the election and swearing-in of elected officials was a small issue. With slow methods of transportation and the nature of the politician in the 18th century, the lame duck period was almost a necessity. In fact, once the November election was established, it was more than a year before newly elected congressmen met in December.
But from the start, the lame duck period was a problem, most famously illustrated in the Marbury v Madison case, where lame-duck appointments by out-going President John Adams set the stage for a landmark Supreme Court decision with his series of late-night, last-minute appointments. The 20th Amendment cleared up this problem to a degree, by shortening the lame duck period. The Congress is sworn in on January 3 following the election, and the President is sworn in on January 20, rather than the March 4th prescribed in the 12th Amendment. The Amendment also closes a gap in Presidential power by specifying what will happen if a President-elect dies before he is sworn in. The 20th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 2, 1932, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1933 (327 days).
The 20th reached some notoriety during the impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton in 1998; the final House vote was taken after the 1998 elections, and the Senate was not scheduled to hear the case until after the swearing-in of the next Congress in 1999. Arguments that the 20th conceptually required a revote by the new House were fruitless, however.
Mostly a house cleaning issue because the Political class does not give up power without trying to get their way up to the last minute.
Amendment 21 - 18th Amendment Repealed
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 2/20/1933
Ratified 12/5/1933
History
21st Amendment
It would be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment was completely ineffective. It would also be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment caused the lawlessness embodied by people like Al Capone. The 18th Amendment did reduce alcohol consumption in the United States, and it did not cause organized crime. In the Prohibition era, alcohol consumption (measured in gallons of ethanol consumed) dropped to an average of less than a gallon per person per year, down from two and a half gallons in 1915. And organized crime existed before Prohibition, and existed after it, too.
That having been said, the Prohibition era did have a certain sense of lawlessness; the very fact that consumption was not eliminated is testimony to that; and the fact that organized crime manufactured and distributed the bulk of the illicit alcohol of the 1920's and early 1930's is evidence that gangsters were aided by Prohibition. Enforcement was spotty, with stills and speakeasies popping up in every population center. Over-zealous police and federal agents violated civil rights when searching for and destroying the paraphernalia of alcohol. While most Americans respected the law, were in favor of the law, the shine of "dry" began to wear off, especially as the Great Depression set in.
A movement began to form to repeal the 18th Amendment. Prohibition of alcohol was seen as an affront to personal liberty, pushed on the nation by religious moralists. Alcohol was also seen as a source of revenue for the local and national governments. The effort to elect "wet" legislators was as grand as that to elect "dry" ones almost two decades earlier. The Congress passed the amendment on February 20, 1933 (288 days). It mandated, for the first time, that conventions of the states were to vote on the amendment, rather than the legislatures, feeling that conventions would be more apt to vote to ratify - and they did, quickly — the ratification process was complete on December 5, 1933. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, the first time an amendment had been repealed by another.
Clearly this proves that Amendment by State conventions will not run away and can be a single issue as this one was. Con Con fear mongers are just wrong on the facts and wrong on the history.
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 3/21/1947
Ratified 2/27/1951
History
22nd Amendment
Since the presidency of George Washington, only one thing could be said to be totally consistent — that no President had the job for more than two full terms. Washington had been asked to run for a third term in 1796, but he made it quite clear that he had no intention of doing so; that an orderly transition of power was needed to set the Constitution in stone. And so it was for almost 150 years.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected President in 1932, and re-elected in 1936. When it came time for the Democrats to nominate a candidate for the Presidency in 1940, two things had happened. First, the Republicans had made great gains in Congress in the 1938 elections. And Hitler happened. Europe was in the throes of a great war, with trouble in the Pacific, too. A change away from Roosevelt, who had led the nation through the Great Depression, did not seem wise. He was nominated for an unprecedented third term, and won. It was not a landslide victory, however, and it is debatable that FDR would have had a third term had it not been for the war. When 1944 rolled around, changing leaders in the middle of World War II, which the United States was now fully engaged in, also seemed unwise, and FDR ran for and was elected to, a fourth term.
His life was nearly over, however, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, became President upon FDR's death less than 100 days after his inauguration. Though FDR's leadership was seen by many as a key reason that the U.S. came out of WWII victorious, the Congress was determined, once the war ended, to ensure that Washington's self-imposed two-term limit become the law of the land. Specifically excepting Truman from its provisions, the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947. After Truman won a second term in 1948, it was ratified on February 27, 1951 (1,439 days). Truman could have run for a third term, but bowed out early before campaigning began.
More evidence that the Political class does not give up power unless forced to yield or be destroyed.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 6/17/1960
Ratified 3/29/1961
History
23rd Amendment
The District of Columbia has been a unique city since its founding in 1800 as the seat of the new government. When first established, it was a town of 5000, and it was assumed that it would be the center of government, and not a population center. But by 1900, over a quarter of a million people lived within their bounds. Since it is a federal district, however, and not a state, the inhabitants not only had no real local government, they had no vote in the federal government either. By 1960, when 760,000 people lived in Washington, D.C., it seemed odd that people from a dozen states, with lower populations, had more voting rights than residents of the District. As citizens, they were required to pay taxes and to serve in the military, but a vote in the Presidential election was available only to the states.
It is important to note that the 23rd Amendment does not make Washington, D.C., a state; it just confers upon its citizens the number of electors that it would have if it were a state. It also did not provide full representation in Congress for the District. The Congress passed the amendment on June 17, 1960; the amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961 (285 days).
Appears to be mostly a Political statement and the desire to capture a new faction of voters. resident chose to Live in the District - note not a State.
Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 8/27/1962
Ratified 1/23/1964
History
24th Amendment
One of the last legal vestiges of segregation was the effort to keep the black population from participating in the vote. With most methods for keeping the black vote to a minimum declared unconstitutional, several Southern states found an answer — the poll tax. The poll tax has a long history, and was often used in Europe to raise funds. With a poll tax, in order to vote, a certain tax must be paid. The tax is the same for all, which allowed the generally more affluent white population access to the polls with a minimum of pain, while the generally poorer black population would have trouble justifying trading food on the table for a vote in the ballot box. Worse, different kinds of poll taxes were implemented, some accumulating even if no attempt was made to vote, meaning increasingly higher back-taxes to be paid to gain the vote.
In 1939, Congress began to try to get rid of the poll tax, but history was not behind them. After all, in colonial times and when the Constitution first came into effect, land ownership was often a requirement for suffrage. Though only five states still had a poll tax by the time the amendment passed Congress, Supreme Court rulings made it doubtful that mere legislation would eliminate the tax altogether. Proposed by Congress on August 27, 1962, the 24th Amendment was ratified within a year and a half, on January 23, 1964 (514 days).
Again we find limits on governments. This was the last vestige of the civil war hate for the North and the hate from the North to the South.
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 7/6/1965
Ratified 2/10/1967
Note
History
Article 2, Section 1
25th Amendment
When Dwight Eisenhower was president; he suffered from several medical issues that created a power vacuum. Eisenhower and his Vice President Richard Nixon entered into an agreement that allowed Nixon to become Acting President while Eisenhower was incapacitated. The agreement was between the two men and did not have constitutional authority, but it set a precedent that was followed by the following presidents, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
Nothing prepared anyone, however, for the national tragedy of the Kennedy assassination. The 1963 assassination shocked the nation in more ways than the obvious. The advancement of medical technology had many hoping that the President could have been saved after being shot. That was not the case, but if he had been, Kennedy could have been in a coma for an extended period of time, perhaps never able to fully function again. The Eisenhower-Nixon agreement set some things in motion, but was extra-constitutional. The Vice President would be the President, but would not be able to fulfill his duties. The resulting power vacuum would cause a constitutional crisis — who has the power of the Presidency?
Less than two years after Kennedy's death, on July 6, 1965, the Congress passed the 25th Amendment, where the line of succession was not only clarified, but what was to be done in the case of presidential disability was addressed. The selection of a Vice President for an empty Vice Presidential seat was also provided for. The states ratified the amendment on February 10, 1967 (584 days). The second clause, dealing with the filling of a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, was used less than six years later when Gerald Ford assumed the Vice Presidency upon the resignation of Spiro Agnew.
More of a house cleaning amendment to stop those seeking the POWER from usurping.
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 3/23/1971
Ratified 7/1/1971
History
26th Amendment
The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to those over twenty-one.
The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which itself is enforcement legislation based on prior suffrage amendments) that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. Oregon objected to the 18-year-old limit, as well as other provisions of the 1970 Act (it also objected to a prohibition on literacy tests for the franchise). In Oregon v Mitchell (400 U.S. 112), a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to lower the voting age to 18 for national elections, but not for state and local elections. The case was decided on December 1, 1970. Within months, on March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified.
Close Up, an organization dedicated to involving youth in government, has produced a PDF pamphlet on the 26th Amendment and history. You can find the pamphlet on their web site.
Again a Political move to keep the young voters and increase their numbers . . However it was the right thing to do . . if they could be conscripted to fight a war by the Political class were they not entitled to a vote in their selection?
Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
27th Amendment
The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.
In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).
Justice is blind and sometimes slow but eventually she shows up for the dance.
As all can see very few amendments defined rights and created actual new rights but attempted to clarify the existing Constitution limits. However some were serious mistakes - the 14th amendment was pure politics as all alleged benefits and protections were in place in other amendments - it was to apply to blacks. This is how usurped powers are created and like now they have come to a tipping point and WE THE PEOPLE must decide using our State legislatures if this needs to go in the repealed section with the 18th. The 16th is being used to discriminate against a section of our society no different than outright banning minorities from schools and stores - it is also the source of the quid pro quo activities with government employee Unions and other dependent factions - they are bribed with our own tax money to vote in certain ways for their personal benefit.
Last we have the 17th amendment that has proven to be a huge mistake sold to the people as one man one vote an increase in Democracy. Well it created a super body in place of the States Representative selected and owing to the State Legislature - instead we have vote for pork and wheeling and dealing for tax dollars taken from some other State now used to buy votes in that body. It is pure corruption and 100 people that believe themselves to be National Statesmen - some do not even have a home or apartment in their home States . . . when they leave office they become lobbyists . . for millions per year.
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 6/17/1960
Ratified 3/29/1961
History
23rd Amendment
The District of Columbia has been a unique city since its founding in 1800 as the seat of the new government. When first established, it was a town of 5000, and it was assumed that it would be the center of government, and not a population center. But by 1900, over a quarter of a million people lived within their bounds. Since it is a federal district, however, and not a state, the inhabitants not only had no real local government, they had no vote in the federal government either. By 1960, when 760,000 people lived in Washington, D.C., it seemed odd that people from a dozen states, with lower populations, had more voting rights than residents of the District. As citizens, they were required to pay taxes and to serve in the military, but a vote in the Presidential election was available only to the states.
It is important to note that the 23rd Amendment does not make Washington, D.C., a state; it just confers upon its citizens the number of electors that it would have if it were a state. It also did not provide full representation in Congress for the District. The Congress passed the amendment on June 17, 1960; the amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961 (285 days).
Appears to be mostly a Political statement and the desire to capture a new faction of voters. resident chose to Live in the District - note not a State.
Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 8/27/1962
Ratified 1/23/1964
History
24th Amendment
One of the last legal vestiges of segregation was the effort to keep the black population from participating in the vote. With most methods for keeping the black vote to a minimum declared unconstitutional, several Southern states found an answer — the poll tax. The poll tax has a long history, and was often used in Europe to raise funds. With a poll tax, in order to vote, a certain tax must be paid. The tax is the same for all, which allowed the generally more affluent white population access to the polls with a minimum of pain, while the generally poorer black population would have trouble justifying trading food on the table for a vote in the ballot box. Worse, different kinds of poll taxes were implemented, some accumulating even if no attempt was made to vote, meaning increasingly higher back-taxes to be paid to gain the vote.
In 1939, Congress began to try to get rid of the poll tax, but history was not behind them. After all, in colonial times and when the Constitution first came into effect, land ownership was often a requirement for suffrage. Though only five states still had a poll tax by the time the amendment passed Congress, Supreme Court rulings made it doubtful that mere legislation would eliminate the tax altogether. Proposed by Congress on August 27, 1962, the 24th Amendment was ratified within a year and a half, on January 23, 1964 (514 days).
Again we find limits on governments. This was the last vestige of the civil war hate for the North and the hate from the North to the South.
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 7/6/1965
Ratified 2/10/1967
Note
History
Article 2, Section 1
25th Amendment
When Dwight Eisenhower was president; he suffered from several medical issues that created a power vacuum. Eisenhower and his Vice President Richard Nixon entered into an agreement that allowed Nixon to become Acting President while Eisenhower was incapacitated. The agreement was between the two men and did not have constitutional authority, but it set a precedent that was followed by the following presidents, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
Nothing prepared anyone, however, for the national tragedy of the Kennedy assassination. The 1963 assassination shocked the nation in more ways than the obvious. The advancement of medical technology had many hoping that the President could have been saved after being shot. That was not the case, but if he had been, Kennedy could have been in a coma for an extended period of time, perhaps never able to fully function again. The Eisenhower-Nixon agreement set some things in motion, but was extra-constitutional. The Vice President would be the President, but would not be able to fulfill his duties. The resulting power vacuum would cause a constitutional crisis — who has the power of the Presidency?
Less than two years after Kennedy's death, on July 6, 1965, the Congress passed the 25th Amendment, where the line of succession was not only clarified, but what was to be done in the case of presidential disability was addressed. The selection of a Vice President for an empty Vice Presidential seat was also provided for. The states ratified the amendment on February 10, 1967 (584 days). The second clause, dealing with the filling of a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, was used less than six years later when Gerald Ford assumed the Vice Presidency upon the resignation of Spiro Agnew.
More of a house cleaning amendment to stop those seeking the POWER from usurping.
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 3/23/1971
Ratified 7/1/1971
History
26th Amendment
The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to those over twenty-one.
The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which itself is enforcement legislation based on prior suffrage amendments) that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. Oregon objected to the 18-year-old limit, as well as other provisions of the 1970 Act (it also objected to a prohibition on literacy tests for the franchise). In Oregon v Mitchell (400 U.S. 112), a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to lower the voting age to 18 for national elections, but not for state and local elections. The case was decided on December 1, 1970. Within months, on March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified.
Close Up, an organization dedicated to involving youth in government, has produced a PDF pamphlet on the 26th Amendment and history. You can find the pamphlet on their web site.
Again a Political move to keep the young voters and increase their numbers . . However it was the right thing to do . . if they could be conscripted to fight a war by the Political class were they not entitled to a vote in their selection?
Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
27th Amendment
The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.
In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days).
Justice is blind and sometimes slow but eventually she shows up for the dance.
As all can see very few amendments defined rights and created actual new rights but attempted to clarify the existing Constitution limits. However some were serious mistakes - the 14th amendment was pure politics as all alleged benefits and protections were in place in other amendments - it was to apply to blacks. This is how usurped powers are created and like now they have come to a tipping point and WE THE PEOPLE must decide using our State legislatures if this needs to go in the repealed section with the 18th. The 16th is being used to discriminate against a section of our society no different than outright banning minorities from schools and stores - it is also the source of the quid pro quo activities with government employee Unions and other dependent factions - they are bribed with our own tax money to vote in certain ways for their personal benefit.
Last we have the 17th amendment that has proven to be a huge mistake sold to the people as one man one vote an increase in Democracy. Well it created a super body in place of the States Representative selected and owing to the State Legislature - instead we have vote for pork and wheeling and dealing for tax dollars taken from some other State now used to buy votes in that body. It is pure corruption and 100 people that believe themselves to be National Statesmen - some do not even have a home or apartment in their home States . . . when they leave office they become lobbyists . . for millions per year.
In addition to Knowing Your Constitution, it is vitally important that you also know the History of the background of the Constitution. The Articles below will provide you that information.
A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy
The Spiritual is Supreme
". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.
Religious Nature
2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.
An Indivisible Whole
3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.
The Individual's Self-respect
4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.
Some Things Excluded
5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.
It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
The Truly American Concept
6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.
This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.
America a Haven For All Religions
7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
The Conclusion
8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.
Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.
". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.
Religious Nature
2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.
The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.
An Indivisible Whole
3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.
The Individual's Self-respect
4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.
Some Things Excluded
5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.
It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.
The Truly American Concept
6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.
This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.
America a Haven For All Religions
7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
The Conclusion
8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.
Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle.
The Argument for Sovereignty
Does this sound familiar Did the Federal government not just do this to many States and the laws they have made under the powers of the Constitution and the States rights?
Great Britain : Parliament - The Declaratory Act; March 18, 1766
An act for the better securing the dependency of his majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain.
Whereas several of the houses of representatives in his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, have of late against law, claimed to themselves, or to the general assemblies of the same, the sole and exclusive right of imposing duties and taxes upon his majesty's subjects in the said colonies and plantations; and have in pursuance of such claim, passed certain votes, resolutions, and orders derogatory to the legislative authority of parliament, and inconsistent with the dependency Of the said colonies and plantations upon the crown of Great Britain : may it therefore please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be declared ; and be it declared by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had. bath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever,
II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations, whereby the power and authority of the parliament of Great Britain, to make laws and statutes as aforesaid, is denied, or drawn into question, arc, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all in purposes whatsoever.
Source: Great Britain
The statutes at large ... [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering
Cambridge : Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst ; London, 1762-1869
-There is no area in the Constitution that PERMITS anything - it is a limiting document on the Federal government . . it limits what it can do the States are unlimited except in a few spots in the original Constitution . . The bill of rights is a limit on the Government not a granting of rights to the people - the people held all rights and powers not given to the Fed in Article I section 8 and a few other areas . .
Notice the race issue is a straw man - race is not a limiting factor in the Original Constitution nor was slavery which included whites under denture = slavery different word . . the limits on government protects all PEOPLE not just white Catholics or white Evangelicals, not Chinese - all people and all citizens . . So the States have the power to make laws there is no CIVIL RIGHT it is human rights retained by the people and the States - - -
Great Britain : Parliament - The Declaratory Act; March 18, 1766
An act for the better securing the dependency of his majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain.
Whereas several of the houses of representatives in his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America, have of late against law, claimed to themselves, or to the general assemblies of the same, the sole and exclusive right of imposing duties and taxes upon his majesty's subjects in the said colonies and plantations; and have in pursuance of such claim, passed certain votes, resolutions, and orders derogatory to the legislative authority of parliament, and inconsistent with the dependency Of the said colonies and plantations upon the crown of Great Britain : may it therefore please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be declared ; and be it declared by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had. bath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever,
II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all resolutions, votes, orders, and proceedings, in any of the said colonies or plantations, whereby the power and authority of the parliament of Great Britain, to make laws and statutes as aforesaid, is denied, or drawn into question, arc, and are hereby declared to be, utterly null and void to all in purposes whatsoever.
Source: Great Britain
The statutes at large ... [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering
Cambridge : Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst ; London, 1762-1869
-There is no area in the Constitution that PERMITS anything - it is a limiting document on the Federal government . . it limits what it can do the States are unlimited except in a few spots in the original Constitution . . The bill of rights is a limit on the Government not a granting of rights to the people - the people held all rights and powers not given to the Fed in Article I section 8 and a few other areas . .
Notice the race issue is a straw man - race is not a limiting factor in the Original Constitution nor was slavery which included whites under denture = slavery different word . . the limits on government protects all PEOPLE not just white Catholics or white Evangelicals, not Chinese - all people and all citizens . . So the States have the power to make laws there is no CIVIL RIGHT it is human rights retained by the people and the States - - -
Who is General Welfare?
- Matt Shipley (Bio and Archives) Thursday, March 7, 2013
If we were to go “Jay-Walking” across America, randomly asking people about the US Constitution’s general welfare clause, we might get the question in return, “who?” Yet, general welfare is a ‘what’ not a ‘who’ and scholarly left-leaning individuals would quickly define the clause by linking it to social justice; a concept completely at odds with America’s founding principles and the clause’s original intent.
Social justice, which is based on equality of outcome, is a euphemism for social in-justice, because as socialism and communalism’s founding principle it violates God given rights to achieve social equality. These utopian ideas may sound good to the uninformed ear, but in order to achieve outcome equality government or some other authority within society must take property and possessions from those who have more than others and redistribute it to those who do not. Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist idea that should not have any place in American society.
When properly understood, the general welfare clause does not have anything to do with social justice or redistribution of wealth. General welfare appears two times in the Constitution, once in the preamble and the other in Article I, Section 8. The preamble states, among other things, the Constitution was established to promote the general welfare, and in Article I section 8 the first power delegated to Congress is, “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to … provide for the …general welfare of the United States[.]”
To understand the two general welfare clauses, a person must first understand the founding era definition of promote, provide for, general, and welfare. In the lexicon of the founding era and within its constitutional context ‘promote’ meant, “To encourage, advance, or help move forward.” ‘Provide for’ meant, “To make plans, preparations, or arrangements for in advance.” ‘General’ meant, “Common to all; pertaining to the entire nation,” and ‘welfare’ meant, “Happiness; prosperity; well-being.”
Putting these definitions together, the two general welfare clauses mean to encourage and make plans for the happiness, prosperity and wellbeing of the entire nation. This limits the scope of the national government to only spend taxpayer money on things that will be common to all in which all citizens derive an equal benefit, like a common defense. General welfare is also limited by the specific powers delegated to the national government in the Constitution; if it is not expressly written then the national government does not have the authority to do it. Neither the original definition of this clause nor any other constitutionally delegated power gives the national government authority to redistribute income, possessions or anything else to States, special interest groups, or individual citizens.
In response to this logical and legal argument, many people say it is not charitable for a nation that has so much to not provide for the poor and that the plight of the poor in America is too large of a problem for private charity to handle. Advocates of this view do not understand there is nothing charitable about giving someone else’s money away, welfare is out of the government’s biblical jurisdiction, and government sponsored welfare is not effective in helping people in need.
Charity is when a person, out of the kindness of their heart donates their personal time, money, or other assets to those in need. Politicians giving public money away are not being charitable, because their donations do not come out of their personal possessions and they receive political support in return. This is like someone coming to your door asking for a donation and you give them permission to take your neighbor’s possessions and they give you a tax exemption receipt in return. The donation may be for a worthy cause, but you have no legal authority to give your neighbor’s property away and neither do politicians. Without question, taking money from one person and giving it to another is called theft not charity, no matter who does it, and a worthy outcome never justifies the methods used to achieve it.
Government welfare is unbiblical when understood through the principle of biblical jurisdiction. The Bible has three major spheres of jurisdiction: family, church, and state. God has given each one of these entities specific instructions as to their area of responsibility and it is unbiblical for any one of these entities to either abdicate their responsibility or assume responsibilities from another jurisdiction. The family’s jurisdiction is found in Genesis 1:26-28, Proverbs 22:6 and includes: procreation, economics (business), education, tithing, social welfare, hospitality, and a model of union with Christ. The church’s jurisdiction is found in Genesis 12:3 and Ephesians 4 and includes: training the saints, reflecting God’s unity, corporate worship, discipline, caring for widows and orphans, and preparing the body for spiritual warfare. The state or government’s jurisdiction is found in Genesis 9 and Romans 13 and includes: punishing lawbreakers, protecting the righteous and freeing them for good works. The government taking responsibility for welfare is like a private citizen setting up a court to punish lawbreakers, which is an obvious transgression of biblical responsibility.
Government welfare has also been counterproductive
Government welfare has also been counterproductive; instead of helping those in need, America has now enslaved many generations on a welfare system. Welfare recipients have lost their freedom and their dignity, because in order to receive welfare they must do what their master, the government, demands of them. In spite of this, welfare has worked for the politicians who have endorsed it; people are still impoverished and they are still voting for incumbents and candidates who promise to give them more benefits.
In America’s system of government, in which all powers are delegated from the people, if the people do not possess a power then they cannot delegate that power to anyone or anything else, including government. No one in America has the lawful authority to demand others give them money so they can donate it to a charity of their choice: therefore, neither do they have the authority to delegate that power. Based on this principle, redistribution of wealth by government at any level is not only a violation of America’s form of government, it is a violation of individual property rights which government was instituted to protect and at the national level it is unconstitutional.
If these reasons are not enough for someone to logically understand why special welfare, tax subsides, and many other programs for which the national government unlawfully squanders American tax payer money is wrong then here are two more reasons. 1. Redistribution of wealth by politicians is another name for buying votes with tax payer money and 2. It does not make any financial sense to give money to the national government so they can dole it back down to States, special interest groups, or private citizens.
When politicians give grants, subsidies, welfare checks or use other methods to transfer taxpayer money, they are buying votes with public money
When politicians give grants, subsidies, welfare checks or use other methods to transfer taxpayer money from one group of people to another they are buying votes with public money. If candidates promise to give individuals things they are not authorized by the Constitution to give and they receive political support in return, this is a form of election fraud that happens in plain view with tacit consent of the governed. This form of election fraud is just as wrong as suppressing the vote or registering dead people to vote, but the American people allow it to happen.
Giving money to the national government to redistribute to States, groups, or individuals does not make any financial sense, because the national government always redistributes less than what they receive. Governments cost money to operate, so a portion of the money the national government collects will always go towards running their operation, and in this way they will never be able to give back as much as they take.
It makes no sense to give the national government money, so they can give back less and then tell us how we must spend it. It makes far more sense to resolve issues at the lowest level of government where a larger percentage of the tax revenue can be applied to authorized services. Additionally, if the national government is allowed to continue this practice they may take money from you and give it to another State. In this case, you will receive less of a percentage of your tax dollar than if the government only took their cut and gave it back to you. Even if you live in a State that receives more money than it paid in, you should understand that this system is not equitable for those who pay for what they do not receive and some day it might be you on the wrong end of that equation.
For all these reasons, America should honor the Constitution’s original intent and not spend tax payer money on things not authorized by the Constitution. If each citizen upheld this principle, America’s financial problems would go away after we finished paying for previous unconstitutional expenditures.
CDR Matthew W. Shipley, graduated from Navy recruit training in January 1985, Electronics Technician “A” School in October 1985, Naval Academy Preparatory School in 1987 and the United States Naval Academy in 1991.
Shipley’s tours include Assistant Platoon Commander at SEAL Team EIGHT, test article Officer-in-Charge of a Mark V Special Operations Craft (SOC) at United States Special Operations Command, Operations Officer at Special Boat Unit TWENTY, Mk V SOC Liaison Officer to Special Operations Command European Command, Naval Special Warfare Task Unit (NSWTU) Commander for a Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group, and Platoon Commander at SEAL Team EIGHT.
As a reservist, Shipley served as Executive Officer of Navy Reserve Naval Special Warfare Group TWO Detachment 309, as Executive Officer of SEAL Team THREE deployed to Fallujah, Iraq in 2006, as NSWTU Commander Manda Bay, Kenya in Oct 2006 – Mar 2007, and as the Commanding Officer of SEAL Unit EIGHTEEN in Little Creek, Virginia from Dec 2009 – Dec 2011. He retired from the US Navy in Jan 2013.
Shipley’s awards include: Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Defense Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal and various unit, campaign and service awards.
If we were to go “Jay-Walking” across America, randomly asking people about the US Constitution’s general welfare clause, we might get the question in return, “who?” Yet, general welfare is a ‘what’ not a ‘who’ and scholarly left-leaning individuals would quickly define the clause by linking it to social justice; a concept completely at odds with America’s founding principles and the clause’s original intent.
Social justice, which is based on equality of outcome, is a euphemism for social in-justice, because as socialism and communalism’s founding principle it violates God given rights to achieve social equality. These utopian ideas may sound good to the uninformed ear, but in order to achieve outcome equality government or some other authority within society must take property and possessions from those who have more than others and redistribute it to those who do not. Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist idea that should not have any place in American society.
When properly understood, the general welfare clause does not have anything to do with social justice or redistribution of wealth. General welfare appears two times in the Constitution, once in the preamble and the other in Article I, Section 8. The preamble states, among other things, the Constitution was established to promote the general welfare, and in Article I section 8 the first power delegated to Congress is, “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to … provide for the …general welfare of the United States[.]”
To understand the two general welfare clauses, a person must first understand the founding era definition of promote, provide for, general, and welfare. In the lexicon of the founding era and within its constitutional context ‘promote’ meant, “To encourage, advance, or help move forward.” ‘Provide for’ meant, “To make plans, preparations, or arrangements for in advance.” ‘General’ meant, “Common to all; pertaining to the entire nation,” and ‘welfare’ meant, “Happiness; prosperity; well-being.”
Putting these definitions together, the two general welfare clauses mean to encourage and make plans for the happiness, prosperity and wellbeing of the entire nation. This limits the scope of the national government to only spend taxpayer money on things that will be common to all in which all citizens derive an equal benefit, like a common defense. General welfare is also limited by the specific powers delegated to the national government in the Constitution; if it is not expressly written then the national government does not have the authority to do it. Neither the original definition of this clause nor any other constitutionally delegated power gives the national government authority to redistribute income, possessions or anything else to States, special interest groups, or individual citizens.
In response to this logical and legal argument, many people say it is not charitable for a nation that has so much to not provide for the poor and that the plight of the poor in America is too large of a problem for private charity to handle. Advocates of this view do not understand there is nothing charitable about giving someone else’s money away, welfare is out of the government’s biblical jurisdiction, and government sponsored welfare is not effective in helping people in need.
Charity is when a person, out of the kindness of their heart donates their personal time, money, or other assets to those in need. Politicians giving public money away are not being charitable, because their donations do not come out of their personal possessions and they receive political support in return. This is like someone coming to your door asking for a donation and you give them permission to take your neighbor’s possessions and they give you a tax exemption receipt in return. The donation may be for a worthy cause, but you have no legal authority to give your neighbor’s property away and neither do politicians. Without question, taking money from one person and giving it to another is called theft not charity, no matter who does it, and a worthy outcome never justifies the methods used to achieve it.
Government welfare is unbiblical when understood through the principle of biblical jurisdiction. The Bible has three major spheres of jurisdiction: family, church, and state. God has given each one of these entities specific instructions as to their area of responsibility and it is unbiblical for any one of these entities to either abdicate their responsibility or assume responsibilities from another jurisdiction. The family’s jurisdiction is found in Genesis 1:26-28, Proverbs 22:6 and includes: procreation, economics (business), education, tithing, social welfare, hospitality, and a model of union with Christ. The church’s jurisdiction is found in Genesis 12:3 and Ephesians 4 and includes: training the saints, reflecting God’s unity, corporate worship, discipline, caring for widows and orphans, and preparing the body for spiritual warfare. The state or government’s jurisdiction is found in Genesis 9 and Romans 13 and includes: punishing lawbreakers, protecting the righteous and freeing them for good works. The government taking responsibility for welfare is like a private citizen setting up a court to punish lawbreakers, which is an obvious transgression of biblical responsibility.
Government welfare has also been counterproductive
Government welfare has also been counterproductive; instead of helping those in need, America has now enslaved many generations on a welfare system. Welfare recipients have lost their freedom and their dignity, because in order to receive welfare they must do what their master, the government, demands of them. In spite of this, welfare has worked for the politicians who have endorsed it; people are still impoverished and they are still voting for incumbents and candidates who promise to give them more benefits.
In America’s system of government, in which all powers are delegated from the people, if the people do not possess a power then they cannot delegate that power to anyone or anything else, including government. No one in America has the lawful authority to demand others give them money so they can donate it to a charity of their choice: therefore, neither do they have the authority to delegate that power. Based on this principle, redistribution of wealth by government at any level is not only a violation of America’s form of government, it is a violation of individual property rights which government was instituted to protect and at the national level it is unconstitutional.
If these reasons are not enough for someone to logically understand why special welfare, tax subsides, and many other programs for which the national government unlawfully squanders American tax payer money is wrong then here are two more reasons. 1. Redistribution of wealth by politicians is another name for buying votes with tax payer money and 2. It does not make any financial sense to give money to the national government so they can dole it back down to States, special interest groups, or private citizens.
When politicians give grants, subsidies, welfare checks or use other methods to transfer taxpayer money, they are buying votes with public money
When politicians give grants, subsidies, welfare checks or use other methods to transfer taxpayer money from one group of people to another they are buying votes with public money. If candidates promise to give individuals things they are not authorized by the Constitution to give and they receive political support in return, this is a form of election fraud that happens in plain view with tacit consent of the governed. This form of election fraud is just as wrong as suppressing the vote or registering dead people to vote, but the American people allow it to happen.
Giving money to the national government to redistribute to States, groups, or individuals does not make any financial sense, because the national government always redistributes less than what they receive. Governments cost money to operate, so a portion of the money the national government collects will always go towards running their operation, and in this way they will never be able to give back as much as they take.
It makes no sense to give the national government money, so they can give back less and then tell us how we must spend it. It makes far more sense to resolve issues at the lowest level of government where a larger percentage of the tax revenue can be applied to authorized services. Additionally, if the national government is allowed to continue this practice they may take money from you and give it to another State. In this case, you will receive less of a percentage of your tax dollar than if the government only took their cut and gave it back to you. Even if you live in a State that receives more money than it paid in, you should understand that this system is not equitable for those who pay for what they do not receive and some day it might be you on the wrong end of that equation.
For all these reasons, America should honor the Constitution’s original intent and not spend tax payer money on things not authorized by the Constitution. If each citizen upheld this principle, America’s financial problems would go away after we finished paying for previous unconstitutional expenditures.
CDR Matthew W. Shipley, graduated from Navy recruit training in January 1985, Electronics Technician “A” School in October 1985, Naval Academy Preparatory School in 1987 and the United States Naval Academy in 1991.
Shipley’s tours include Assistant Platoon Commander at SEAL Team EIGHT, test article Officer-in-Charge of a Mark V Special Operations Craft (SOC) at United States Special Operations Command, Operations Officer at Special Boat Unit TWENTY, Mk V SOC Liaison Officer to Special Operations Command European Command, Naval Special Warfare Task Unit (NSWTU) Commander for a Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group, and Platoon Commander at SEAL Team EIGHT.
As a reservist, Shipley served as Executive Officer of Navy Reserve Naval Special Warfare Group TWO Detachment 309, as Executive Officer of SEAL Team THREE deployed to Fallujah, Iraq in 2006, as NSWTU Commander Manda Bay, Kenya in Oct 2006 – Mar 2007, and as the Commanding Officer of SEAL Unit EIGHTEEN in Little Creek, Virginia from Dec 2009 – Dec 2011. He retired from the US Navy in Jan 2013.
Shipley’s awards include: Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Defense Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal and various unit, campaign and service awards.