Who said torture doesn’t work? Did you know that Federal judges have dungeons where they perform all forms of torture on the Constitution in order to get it to tell them what they want to hear? They then bring forth such declarations given under duress, and call them interpretations—newly found authorities that never existed, and that would make the Framers and Ratifiers squeal for mercy from their graves. Under such torture, the Constitution has provided many more authorities under the Commerce Clause than the founders supplied. The Commerce Clause gave Congress very limited authority over commerce, with the primary purpose being to keep commerce flowing smoothly from state to state, and to prevent import and export tariffs from state to state. It didn’t give Congress the authority to force citizens to purchase a product, as we know with the Boston Tea Party, or the authority to regulate something that affected interstate commerce, or something that affected something that affected interstate commerce. Very simply, only the act of commerce could be regulated by Congress. We know the founders didn’t think much of being told what tea to buy, and they certainly wouldn’t have cottoned to the idea that the new federal government would have the authority to mandate construction standards for boats or wagons because the use of those would affect interstate commerce. Visualize that argument being made in the 1790’s. It’s very simple to understand. If the usurpations committed by the federal government of today, had been authorities included in the drafting of the original Constitution, the Constitution would have never made it out of the Convention, and if it did by some stretch, it would have never been ratified.
Believe it or not, since the very beginning of this great republic there have been those who have desired to transfer as much power as possible from the states and individuals to federal politicians and judges. Starting all the way back to Hamilton’s unconstitutional bank where he made the argument to Washington that the new federal government had the authority to regulate the economy, making the bank constitutional, when in fact no such authority existed. Washington then consulted Jefferson about the bank idea. Jefferson stated that the bank was not an enumerated power, nor was it necessary and proper to carry out any of the enumerated powers, so therefore was unconstitutional. Jefferson’s understanding of the constitution was spot on, while Hamilton’s was wrought with amnesia for he had completely forgotten all about that war of independence thing a few years earlier and the reasons for it.
It’s very, very disturbing to me to hear so-called constitutional thinkers talk about the constitution in such haphazard and even reckless ways. They, just like those before them have turned the constitution into a mishmash of mangled words where up means down and left means right. They have reduced the constitution to a handful of meaningless phrases that completely distort the meaning of various parts of the constitution. Phrases such as the “general welfare ” clause, which is not a clause about general welfare, but instead a clause about taxation, how they are raised and what they can be spent on. Another distortion is the term “necessary and proper” also known as the “elastic” clause. which many seem to think this clause is there as some kind of catch-all. This clause, however only allows congress to do those things that are necessary and proper to carry into action powers that are listed in the constitution such as purchasing battle ships for the navy. The navy is a listed power, but buying battleships is not. Another famous distortion is the “supremecy clause” and the notion that all federal laws are supreme…….this could not be further from the truth. Two very important words that are never mentioned in the abbreviated version are “pursuant to”. In order for any federal law to be the supreme law of the land, it must be made pursuant to the constitution, which means it must be constitutional.
Another “Supreme” distortion is the doctrine of incorporation by which it has been contrived that the Bill of Rights applies not only to the federal government, but state and local governments, public schools and anything else the courts wish to apply them to. The United States Constitution applies only as described therein, and the state constitutions apply to the state governments and the other government entities such as counties, cities, and towns.
The United States Constitution does not require a law degree to understand, although it does require several readings and some research. The only correct reading of the Constitution is a literal reading for it actually requires very little “interpretation.” A literal reading of it, however, presents one major problem to those with devious motives toward it. It will give them few, to no avenues for such efforts.
God save the United States Constitution!!!!
The so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution like the Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause has come to mean something entirely incoherent with what it is suppose to mean. Every clause of the Constitution that has been reduced to a hand full of meaningless words has become exactly that, meaningless. As with all of the other abbreviated clauses there are other words in Article VI of the Constitution which includes the Supremacy Clause that have significant meaning. What exactly are those words that nearly everyone ignores? Article VI of the Constitution states,
“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”
The most important words of this clause are “pursuance thereof.” Very simply, in order for a federal law to be the supreme law of the land the law it must be in pursuance of the Constitution which means it must be constitutional. Does anybody who has any knowledge of the founding of this nation and the reasons for our separation from England believe that the founders and ratifiers intended for those in the new federal government to be the sole deciders-in-chief of the extent of the power they could wield over the American people. I want you to burn the following question into your mind—Did the founders fight the Revolutionary War to free themselves from the tyranny of King George in order to transfer that tyranny to a handful of individuals in the new federal government? The debates by the Framers and Ratifiers of the new Constitution were all about limiting the power of the new Federal government, because they understood human nature and that those in power would seek ever more power. They prophesized that the United States could become exactly what it has become.
California Representative Pete Stark no so long ago said that the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. The problem with this formulation is that it is not the federal government doing it, it is instead a group of individuals using the power of the federal government to force themselves upon the American citizens. Unfortunately, those in the federal government do have the power to do pretty much whatever they want, because we allow it, but, they do not have the Constitutional authority, which brings us back to “Pursuance thereof”. What should be done when those with the backing of the power of the federal government make laws or in the case of those in the judiciary interpret laws in a manner that is clearly not in “pursuance thereof”? The very simple answer is to ignore such unconstitutional acts, ah yes, nullify them. Yikes!!!
If we have learned nothing else, we have learned that those individuals in all three branches of the federal government will seize for themselves all of the power that we, the American citizens will allow them to seize. While we have sat idly by, the last several decades all three branches of the federal government have intruded into areas they have absolutely no authority to be involved in. These individuals have shown nothing but a pure disregard for the Constitution when it comes to restricting their power over the people. It is now time for us, the American citizens as individuals and collectively through our State politicians to tell those in the federal government to go jump in the lake. We as individuals and our State governments should nullify all unconstitutional acts by any branch of the federal government, because that is the only way to force these traitors to the Constitution back to a more constitutional form of government.
I can hear it now. How can we endeavor to sanction such mutinous and anarchic activity? I guess that depends on where you think the mutinous and anarchic activity began. It is my contention that it begins with the unconstitutional acts of those in the federal government. Why should it be left to those in the power circles of the federal government to determine among themselves’ the extent of the power they exert over the American people, and then invoke the supremacy clause. Remember the following sentence also. Federal politicians and judges don’t have the authority to vote themselves a raise in power, and the Constitution would have never been ratified if the federal powers that exist today had been included in the proposed Constitution…never. The liberal loons who worship the federal government are already screaming slavery or something to do with the civil war as if nullification by osmosis means support for slavery. These folks will do all kinds of contortions to get any argument back to slavery somehow in order to put those who propose freedom on the defensive.
Nullification has occurred everywhere and always in some form or fashion. California recently nullified federal drug laws by allowing marijuana for medical use. Presidents since its inception have nullified the War Powers Act, because they don’t believe congress has the authority to restrict the president’s authority as commander in chief. Abraham Lincoln nullified the constitution when he launched a war that killed upwards of 3/4 of a million Americans, crippled countless others, left homes, families, and property in ruins in order to force the southern states back into the union. Secession was constitutional, while preventing secession through war was not. Enough said.
In light of the recent ruling by Florida U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson it is interesting while at the same time very frustrating to hear the analysis on whether Obamacare is constitutional or unconstitutional. One jaw dropper I heard today was from Michael Medved when he said Obamacare is unconstitutional, but that single payor or the public option would not be, merely because of the power of taxation. He stated very simply that since the federal government has the power of taxation that it can do whatever it wants with that tax money. He just leaves out about three-fourths of the picture needed to come the correct conclusion that any federal involvement in any health care program such as Obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal government does have the power of taxation, but, but, but, those taxes are authorized to be spent only on an enumerated power, or something necessary and proper in order to carry out an enumerated power—it is just that simple.
Another stupid statement I heard was from Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly during their discussion about this ruling. O’Reilly keeps bringing up the auto insurance safety issue argument while saying the “government” has the authority in safety concerns to get involved. O’Reilly doesn’t understand that the federal government has no such authority to mandate auto insurance, none, zip, zero, nada. He doesn’t even seem to understand that there are actually separation of powers not only between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, but also between the state and federal governments. His, and Medved’s constant use of the term “the government” leaves one very important question to be answered—which government? Then Kelly stated that the commerce clause gives congress the ability to do almost anything—no it doesn’t. The commerce clause gives congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and that’s it. It doesn’t give the authority to regulate things that affect interstate commerce, such as the insane ruling in the 30’s that a man couldn’t grow wheat for his own consumption, because it affected interstate commerce.
It is amazing to me that seemingly intelligent individuals are so willing to accept such unconstitutional misguided notions. Their policy is, Oh well, the courts have decided, there is nothing we can do except go along to get along. There is a saying that goes something like this; At first, a man exposed to criminal activity will abhor it. As he is exposed to it longer he will become indifferent to it, and with continued exposure he will become to embrace it. This is exactly what has happened in respects to the unconstitutional activity of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. The only way to battle such rights robbing stupidity is to constantly and unapologetically argue that the federal government return to a constitutional form of government. We can’t reverse everything, but we can reverse much of it with time, and allow the states to handle issues that affect each of us so profoundly. Such decisions should be left to those near to us, not by someone in a far away state.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” To understand the First Amendment with an accurate reading of it is to understand the limits of its authority. The Constitution and the attached amendments are a contract that should be read like any other contract, by reading the actual words, and it is clear that the founders did not want the federal government to establish a religion or restrict freedom of religion, but, to say that the First Amendment says that church and state should be separate, that there should be a wall of separation is to say something the First Amendment just does not say.
There are many examples of how this incorrect interpretation has resulted in misguided restrictions and even used by those hostile to religion. One example is the cross that was erected in 1934 by VFW members on federal land in California honoring WWI veterans. This cross was ruled unconstitutional by a California district court on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. In order for that to be true, the cross would have to have been placed there as a result of the federal government establishing a religion, which it was not, or it would have to somehow restricted freedom of religion, which it didn’t. It is clear that the amendment had not been violated, but the district court ruled otherwise—they just made it up.
Another good example is school vouchers. If a parent receives government money to send a child to a private school and then decides to send that child to a Catholic school, it is not a violation of the First Amendment. The parent was not forced to use the religious school by government decree, they chose to use it. Nor does it restrict their or anybody’s freedom of religion. The examples of how the First Amendment has been incorrectly invoked to restrict freedoms are too numerous to cover here, but we need to remember only one thing when evaluating whether or not this amendment has been violated. Is the activity in question the result of Congress passing a law establishing or restricting religion. One point I think should be made is that the First Amendment guarantees to all of us a secular government, not a secular nation. Some seem to think it guarantees us a secular nation.
The reason I am making such an issue about this is that this is not the only portion of the Constitution that is being warped into something never intended. For instance, the commerce clause which states Congress can regulate commerce among the states has been twisted into saying that congress can force us to participate in insurance programs, and that they can control other aspects of our lives. The Takings Clause which says private property can be stolen for public use such as schools, roads, public buildings and the like now means that private property can be stolen for public benefit such as increased tax revenues that can be reaped by transferring the property to another private entity to be used for private purposes not public use. Congress and the President believe there is no limit to their authorities, and the day will come when we ask, “Where have all of our rights gone?”