Tag Archives: Constitutional

Posts that contain a direct link to The United States Constitution

Was The Bill Of Rights Really Necessary?

Posted June 19th, 2016

In 1787, after The United States Constitution was written, and prior to it’s ratification, in 1789, there were a considerable amount of citizens, in the thirteen respective States, who were very skeptical about ratifying this Federal Constitution, and thus creating this new Federal Government. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a collection of articles and essays called The Federalist – which, today, we refer to as The Federalist Papers – in hopes to gain support in favor of ratification. Conversely, a series of essays were written by a few men, writing under pseudonyms, warning against ratification, and making the case that the proposed Constitution was not sufficient in guarding against tyranny.

The anti-Federalists, as they were called, insisted that a Bill of Rights be included in this new Federal Constitution if it were to have any hope of gaining their support. Eventually, the Federalists conceded to a Bill of Rights, which would be drafted in the form of Constitutional Amendments and sent to the States for ratification once The Constitution was ratified and the first Congress was convened.

While today, The Bill of Rights is largely accepted as a critical part of our Federal Constitution, it is very interesting to read the conflicting opinions of that time, as both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists made very valid and very insightful observations. Below, I will first share the anti-Federalist point of view. Below that, I will share The Federalist point of view. After reading both, and considering the state of our Government, today, it’s not hard to see the validity of both points of view. Continue reading

Share

No, This Is Not The Key To Solving The Gun “Problem”!

Posted June 14th, 2016

Any decent person would be saddened over this senseless loss of life in Orlando, Florida. It is extremely sad every time we hear about another mass shooting. And, we mourn for every life lost. However, for better or worse, we do not all agree that restricting the ownership of guns, in any way, would do a bit of good in stopping these senseless crimes.

On Bill O’Reilly’s Monday night appearance on The Stephen Colbert Show, O’Reilly and Colbert were talking about this tragic shooting in Orlando. In this segment with Colbert, as reported by TheBlaze.com, O’Reilly says some very troubling, and misleading things, in my humble opinion.

Here are a few examples from The Blaze.com article: Continue reading

Share

Why Free Speech Is Not So Free

Posted April 5th, 2014

On April 3rd, Mozilla , the developers of the popular Internet browser, “Firefox,” posted this post on their blog site – announcing that Brendan Eich has resigned, after only 10 days as CEO of Mozilla.

The below paragraph is from this CNN article, which gives some background into how the controversy began:

“Last week, Mozilla promoted Eich, a longtime employee who was previously the company’s chief technology officer, to the position of CEO. The move prompted renewed outrage by third-party developers and employees. Eich donated $1,000 to support Propostion 8 in 2008. The California ballot initiative sought to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The donation was made public in 2012 but Eich held onto his job.”

Continue reading

Share

The Liberty Amendments (Proposed Amendments)

Posted December 28th, 2013

Back in August, I wrote a post called, “Article Five And The Liberty Amendments,” referring readers to the Article V process in The United States Constitution, and Mark Levin’s great book, “The Liberty Amendments.”

In this post, I wanted to share the 10 (below) proposed Amendments that Mark Levin suggested in his book. While we may not agree with all of the suggested amendments, in their totality, or perhaps we may feel that some amendments should be added or deleted, Mark Levin gave us a great starting point for which to begin the discussion:

Continue reading

Share

It’s Not About How Much Money We Earn

Posted November 13th, 2013

If we were to ask fellow American citizens, “do you believe that wages, in our country, essentially, have been stagnate for many years”? I am pretty confident that most Americans would say, “yes,” and agree that wages, today, do not rise at the same percentage that they once did. I would, also, agree with that sentiment, and would add that, once upon a time, companies, perhaps, were much more generous with things such as Christmas bonuses, profit-sharing etc. Unfortunately, however, the commonly accepted belief tends to be that companies, CEOs etc., today, are just plain greedy, and that the average worker is, simply, being screwed. While, there may be some truth to these sentiments, I believe, it completely misses the point, and fails to pinpoint the root cause.

Allow me to quote from this previous post, in which I was attempting to make the case as to why raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, and to point out the unintended consequences that come along with doing so:

Continue reading

Share

Why Medicare And Social Security ARE Welfare Programs

Posted October 12th, 2013

Quite frequently, when this topic comes up, many Americans, rightly, will say, “we paid into these programs, and we are entitled to the benefits.” I totally agree with that sentiment. Millions of Americans, over several decades, have paid into these programs, which I, often, refer to as Debticare, and Social Insecurity; I refer to them as such, because, anyone who is even minimally engaged in politics, these days, understands that both of these programs are bankrupt, and unfunded to the tune of trillions (with a T) of dollars. And, while people did pay into them, and they are entitled to the benefits, it does not excuse away the fact that these programs have become an enormous burden to the tax payers, and, will eventually bankrupt our Federal Government. Serious reforms need to be put in place, which should involve free-market forces, and the ability for Americans to opt/out of these programs, so that they can use that money to manage their own healthcare and retirement accounts.

Continue reading

Share

We Need Consensus, Not Compromise

Posted October 6th, 2013

Consensus:
• Majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
• General agreement or concord; harmony.

Compromise:
• A settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.


Over and over, whenever there is a difference between these Parties, in Congress, we are lectured by these Politicians, and their media mouthpieces, that there needs to be compromise. Somehow, if we just light a nice camp fire, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya, all will be well. But, the larger question is rarely asked: What is it that is being compromised?

Continue reading

Share

Article Five And The Liberty Amendments

Posted August 25th, 2013

For approximately five years now, I have been suggesting that We, The People, who truly believe in Individual Liberty, and State Sovereignty, call for an Article V, Constitutional Convention, which gives us, in these 50 states, via our State Legislatures, and “independent of Congress,” a process for adding amendments to The United States Constitution.

Sadly, whenever I, or anyone else, makes this suggestion, we are often confronted by the fear-mongers, who claim that such a Convention would be hijacked by the leftists, and we would end up in much worse shape. These fears, while understandable to an extent, shows either a complete lack of faith in the process for which our Founders created, or a complete misunderstanding of how the process is meant to work. If we except the status-quo, and allow fear to prevent us from trying something new, and out-of-the-box, then, we deserve exactly the Government we currently have!

For those who are looking for a perfectly legal, and Constitutional, method, to amend our Constitution, without a permission slip from Congress, and through our respective State Legislatures, then, Mark Levin’s new book, “The Liberty Amendments,” is a must have! When I first heard of this book, I was very excited, and purchased it immediately. I am very pleased that someone as high profile as Mark Levin has written this book. I am hoping that it will begin the discussion, and perhaps get the ball rolling, on a process that, in my humble opinion, is long overdue.

Please check out the below video, of Mark Levin, on The Hannity Show, discussing the book, and explaining how The Article V process works:

Continue reading

Share

Was The Constitution Written To Restrain The Federal Government?

Posted August 24th, 2013

In the past, from great men like Patrick Henry, to brilliant men, today, like Judge Andrew Napolitano, we’ve been told that The United States Constitution was written to keep The Federal Government off our backs…

Patrick Henry:
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

While I completely agree with Patrick Henry that, The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, the truth is, The United States Constitution created The Federal Government; therefore, if there were no U.S. Constitution, or The U.S. Constitution was never ratified, there would be no Federal Government!

Continue reading

Share

Commerce Power: To Regulate, Not Prohibit

Posted August 23rd, 2013

Below, is a very insightful post, from The Tenth Amendment Center, that explains, nicely, the original intent [The Commerce Clause] of  Congress’ Power to regulate commerce:

In a law review article  titled “To Regulate, Not Prohibit: Limiting the Commerce Power,” New York University Law Professor Barry Friedman, and 2011 New York University Law graduate, Genevieve Lakier take on the daunting task of reasserting the historic and genealogical lineage of the Commerce Clause from its inception through the country’s 237 years of existence as a federal republic.

Continue reading

Share

Our Constitutional Protections Are Esoteric?

Posted August 3rd, 2013

On July 25th, 2013, at the Republican Governors Forum in Aspen, Colorado, Governor Chris Christie made his now, infamous, remarks (see below video), “on the Libertarianism side of things,” which he directed toward those of us who are, “rightly,” criticizing the N.S.A.’s “extensive,” surveillance programs, and those of us who believe that The 4th Amendment of The Bill of Rights means exactly what it says, in regards to restraining our Federal Government:

Amendment IV (1791):
“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.”

The Governor also called these (constitutional) views, “dangerous,” and asked if we have “amnesia.”

The Governor continued, with the below remarks:
“These esoteric, intellectual debates – I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the [911] widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.”

Continue reading

Share

We Need To Shrink The Executive Branch

Posted May 25th, 2013

In light of these most recent scandals, and egregious assaults on the First Amendment of The United States Constitution, by The Obama Administration, in regards to the wiretapping of journalists at Foxnews, and The Associated Press – as well as The I.R.S. admission to having targeted political groups whose politics they didn’t agree with – we are seeing a number of officials from The Obama Administration, including The President, himself, to Attorney General Eric Holder, onto Lois Lerner of The I.R.S., denying that they knew anything in regards to these scandals.

Attorney General Holder is the man in charge at The Department of Justice; Lois Lerner is the Director of The Exempt Organizations at The I.R.S – that decides which groups can obtain tax exemption; and The President, of course, is in charge of the entire Executive Branch of The Federal Government.

Thus far, it has been proven, via a signed document by Eric Holder, that he did know about the wiretapping of journalists, the seizure of their e-mails, and “may” very well have perjured himself by stating otherwise to Congress. Lois Lerner, cowardly, pleaded The 5th, and is on administrative leave, which “suggests” that she may know more then she is willing to say. And, The President continues to act as if he is as shocked as we are, in regards to these outrageous assaults on The U.S. Constitution, and our Personal Liberties.

Continue reading

Share

The Federal War On The 4th Amendment Continues

Posted May 3rd, 2013

Below, is a very insightful post, from The Tenth Amendment Center, written by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

“Here they go again. The Obama administration has asked its allies in Congress to introduce legislation that would permit the feds to continue their march through the Fourth Amendment when it comes to obtaining private information about all of us.

The Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be left alone, was written largely in response to legislation Parliament enacted in the colonial era that permitted British soldiers to write their own search warrants and then use those warrants as a legal basis to enter private homes. The ostensible purpose of doing that was to search through the colonists’ papers looking for stamps, which the Stamp Act required the colonists to affix to all documents in their possession. The laws that permitted the soldier-written search warrants and the Stamp Act were the British government’s fatal political mistakes, which arguably caused a major shift in colonial opinion toward secession from Britain 10 years before the bloody part of the Revolution began.

Continue reading

Share

Gold And Silver Approved As Legal Tender By Arizona Senate

Posted March 16th, 2013

Below, is a very encouraging, and insightful, post, from The Tenth Amendment Center:

“Arizona may become the second state, after Utah, to recognize gold and silver as legal tender authorized for payments of debts and taxes.

The Arizona Senate voted Thursday to approve SB 1439, the Constitutional Tender Act, which allows businesses and the state government to accept payments in gold or silver. The vote was 17-11. (see how reps voted here)

The Legal Tender bill specifies that legal tender in Arizona consists of all of the following:

1. Legal Tender authorized by Congress.

2. Specie (containing gold or silver) coin issued at any time by the U.S. government.

3. Any other specie that a court of competent jurisdiction rules by a final, unappealable order to be within the scope of state authority to make legal tender.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Continue reading

Share

No Federal Permission Slip Is Required

Posted January 20th, 2013

In a prior post, entitled, “If Congress Can, Unilaterally, Modify The Constitution,” I wrote this brief history of The Bill of Rights:

“Following The Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention of 1787, where The United States Constitution was debated, written, and sent to the thirteen respective states for ratification, many notable, and well-respected Patriots, and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, also referred to as The Anti-Federalists, publicly spoke out against the ratification of The Constitution. Among the several reasons: they believed it was a threat to Individual Liberties; they were opposed to the new Federal Court system; and feared that The President would eventually morph into a King.”

Continue reading

Share

If Congress Can, Unilaterally, Modify The Constitution

Posted December 29th, 2012

Following The Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention of 1787, where The United States Constitution was debated, written, and sent to the thirteen respective states for ratification, many notable, and well-respected Patriots, and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, also referred to as The Anti-Federalists, publicly spoke out against the ratification of The Constitution. Among the several reasons: they believed it was a threat to Individual Liberties; they were opposed to the new Federal Court system; and feared that The President would eventually morph into a King. In a paper, which eventually became part of the Anti-Federalist Papers, and under the pseudonym “Brutus,” it was written:

“Ought not a [Federal] government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are willfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.”

Continue reading

Share

Jefferson And Madison On State’s Rights And Nullification

Posted December 2nd, 2012

In 1798, in response to President John Adam’s, and The Federalist Party’s, Alien and Sedition Acts, and a Federal Government that was increasingly overstepping the Limited Constitutional Powers to which they were created to be an agent of, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison responded with two sets of Resolutions. Jefferson authored The Kentucky Resolution, and Madison, The Virginia Resolution. For those of us who are concerned about the increasing size and scope of our Federal Government, both Resolutions are as insightful, and applicable, today, as they were in 1798. And, both Resolutions should be read, and understood, by our State Legislators, so that they understand that they are responsible to us, the citizens of these respective states, and not to The Federal Government, or some political party.

Below, is a paragraph from each of The Resolutions, which demonstrate, clearly, and puts into perspective, the relationship between our states and The Federal Government; as well as the remedy, when The Federal Government legislates, and assumes powers, outside of it’s Enumerated Constitutional Powers:

Continue reading

Share

Public Policy Should Not Be About The Rich Or The Poor

Posted October 29th, 2012

So often, we hear from politicians in both parties, and, by extension, many of the people who vote them into office, why our Government(s) should, or needs to, spend more of our money. Then, if you confront a politician, and ask them why they continually support creating more welfare programs, you will most likely get an answer such as: “We do it because people are out of work,” and, “we care about the poor.” The supposition is that, Government must spend more of our money, otherwise people will be homeless, and starving. But, is that really the case? Please consider what one of our greatest Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said, in regards to this subject:

Continue reading

Share

Should Congress Be Doing The Will Of The People?

Posted July 28th, 2012

Quite frequently, we hear people, today, from all sides of the political spectrum, say, “they [Congress] are not doing the will of the people”! But, should Congress be doing the will of the people?

In our Federal Constitution, the framers gave The United States Congress specific, Enumerated Powers to which they could legislate. And, in Article 4, Section 4, of The Constitution, the below words were written:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

A Republic is a state or a country that is not led by a monarchy, and which the people have an impact on it’s government. We, in The United States, are a Constitutional Republic, governed by the rule of law, and by which We, The People, and our states, are “represented” by elected officials, in Congress. The word Republic is derived from the Latin phrase “res publica, which is translated to English as “public thing,” or “public affair.”

Continue reading

Share

Nullification Of The Act Is The Rightful Remedy

Posted July 14th, 2012

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson, while serving as Vice-President for President John Adams, authored The Kentucky Resolution; followed by The Virginia Resolution, authored by James Madison. Both were inspired by opposition to President Adam’s, and The Federalist Party’s, Alien and Sedition Acts.

Jefferson began The Kentucky Resolution with these words:

“Resolved, that the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…”

Jefferson, in the 8th Article, included these words:

“Where powers are assumed [by The Federal Government] which have not been delegated [by The U.S. Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy…”

Over the last decade, we, as citizens, have seen a long list of Federal laws, that not only has grown our Federal Government, exponentially, but are threatening the very liberties that we, as citizens of this great country, once took for granted. But, in my lifetime, I can not recall a piece of legislation as polarizing, and as threatening to Individual (economic) Liberties, and states’ rights, as this so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” enacted by The Democrats, and The Obama Administration. And, as such, Jefferson’s words, included in his Resolution, are as true today as they were in 1798.

Continue reading

Share

What Is The National Cost?

Posted June 30th, 2012

For many years, particularly in the area of healthcare, we have heard politicians, commentators, and citizens, talk about the national cost. But, what is the national cost?

Our country was founded as a Federalist system, in which the states maintained their sovereignty, and the domestic concerns of our citizenry were addressed within our respective states. In our Federal Constitution, the framers gave The United States Congress specific and defined, Enumerated Powers, to which they could legislate. These Enumerated Powers were, and should be, the only areas to which there is a so-called national cost, and to which the tax-payers of all 50 states should be contributing to. Anything outside of those Enumerated Powers is unconstitutional, and outside of the limited scope of The Federal Government that was established by our Founders; and the contract upon which the sovereign states, ratified, contingent to forming this Federal union.

We once had a vibrant free-market in this country, which created an unprecedented amount of wealth, and prosperity. This blessing also enabled Americans to be extremely charitable to their fellow citizens, who were the most in need. Then, came The New Deal policies of The FDR Administration, plus the so-called Great Society policies of The LBJ Administration, which greatly changed this dynamic, as our Federal Government created huge Federal programs, and began an unprecedented amount of intervention into our private economy. And, even if we were to put aside the constitutional argument, and give these programs the benefit of the doubt, by saying that they were purely benevolent, and well-intended, the hard reality is that, Social Security, and Medicare, along with a plethora of other Government programs, have well-exceeded their original projections, and are pushing our Government, and country, right over a fiscal cliff!

Continue reading

Share

What Is Our Fair Share?

Posted May 25th, 2012

Over the last three years, we have heard some people in our country talk incessantly about wealthy people needing to pay their (so-called) fair share. But, what really is our Fair Share?

In The United States Constitution, our Founders wrote these words:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…”

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census…”

Our Founders, when creating The U.S. Constitution, in Philadelphia, in 1787, largely agreed that, all direct taxation should be in direct proportion to our Representation, in The House of Representatives, in Congress; as it only stood to reason that, no one should be taxed without having proper Representation; neither should they have considerable  Representation, if their requisite, or proportional, amount of taxes were not paid to The Federal Government.

Below, are some words, by two men, who actually participated in those debates:

Continue reading

Share

It’s Not About Their Vision Or Values

Posted January 22nd, 2012

Every two years, when there are national elections in The United States, inevitably, we hear pundits ask these types of questions: What vision do they have for our country? What direction do they want to lead our country? What values do they hold?

While such things may appeal to the sensibilities of voters, and are a clever way for politicians to win our votes, I often take exception to these sorts of questions:

In our Federal Constitution, The framers gave The United States Congress 16 explicit, and Enumerated Powers, to which they could legislate. And, since then, there has been 27 subsequent Amendments. Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that anyone in our Federal Government shall have the power to legislate the values or morals of each “individual” in this union of “sovereign states.”

Continue reading

Share

It’s Not About Republicans Versus Democrats

Posted August 13th, 2011

In 1787, when our Constitution was debated and written by the delegates of the thirteen original states, and subsequently ratified by the state legislatures, it was agreed that The United States would be a Federation of sovereign states, with a [Republic] Republican form of Government.

At the time when The Constitution was being debated, there were two primary groups: One was The Federalists, who, at the time, were more like Nationalists, who believed in a powerful top down sort of Central Government, and The Anti-Federalists, who, had several reservations to the new Constitution, and strongly believed in the sovereignty of the states. In fact, it was the anti-Federalists who we can thank for our treasured Bill of Rights; as the anti-Federalists would not sign onto the new Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was guaranteed.

Sadly, after only a few short years of The U.S. Constitution being ratified, factions were already forming, as The Federalists, despite entering into a (Constitutional) contract with the rest of the states, began putting forth legislation that was an obvious abridgment to the sovereignty of the states, and well exceeded the Limited Powers given to The Federal Government.

Continue reading

Share

What Is The Separation of Church and State?

Posted May 17th, 2011

The words “Separation of Church and State,” were a metaphor used by Thomas Jefferson, in his correspondence between himself and The Danbury Baptists, in 1801. His exact words, were, “thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

These words, by Jefferson, to The Danbury Baptists, were used to demonstrate, and confirm, that, Constitutionally, our “Federal” Government was removed, legislatively, from the establishment, and prohibition, of any religion in the United States. Jefferson’s metaphor, not only is nowhere in the Constitution, but even in his letter, the metaphor was never intended to apply to our respective states. He was reassuring the Danbury Baptists that our Federal Government would not, and could not, make any laws that would abridge their religious freedoms.

It is the [Federal Government] Supreme Court, who, nefariously, used Jefferson’s metaphor to lead people to believe that there was no role for even state Governments, in our respective states, in the area of religion.

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, was intended to ‘protect’ our individual liberties, in our respective states. In the Everson vs. the Board of Education case, members of the Supreme Court used the case as a way to begin removing some of the state’s and the people’s [First Amendment] religious liberties – which, traditionally, would have been a matter for the citizens and their state constitutions to address.

Prior to that decision, state and local Governments did have some role, in our respective states, in the area of religion. It was after this Supreme Court decision, that public schools started removing prayer from schools etc. And, this is the same Federal Government that, for the last 30 or so years, many Conservative (likely, well-intended) groups have been working to ‘further empower’ with certain powers that, Constitutionally, have always belonged to (and, should always belong to) the states.


Further Reading:
Everson vs. the Board of Education
10th Amendment

Share