November 01 , 2004

Before a citizen can cast an informed vote, that individual must have a basic understanding of what he or she is voting on. When it comes to the office of the president, since the president's powers and duties are defined and limited by the Constitution, that knowledge must extend to the Constitution and system of government established by that document. After reading numerous letters to the editor from various newspapers all over the country and listening to the American people tell media commentators the reasons they support or oppose a particular candidate, one thing is crystal clear--the American people are not constitutionally competent to vote in the up-coming presidential election.

Prior to officially taking office, the individual elected president must take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Thus, a president is bound to the Constitution. When candidates engage in debates or campaign speeches, if they plan to honor their oath of office, they should confine their promises and criticisms to things within the scope of the powers granted by the Constitution. When it comes to President Bush and candidate Kerry, other than discussions concerning foreign affairs, they have not engaged in a constitutional debate, they have engaged in a usurpation of power debate.

Bush and Kerry have made numerous promises to entice voters irrespective of whether the program or law being discussed is within the constitutional powers of the federal government. They speak as if the federal government has unlimited power over every aspect of our lives and the president is a king or dictator who has the authority to enact law on his own account. Since the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, not the president, promised legislation and accomplishments are nothing but wishful thinking. And if the promised legislation is outside the scope of the powers granted by the Constitution, the promises become promises of corruption and usurpations. Instead of castigating these individuals for promised usurpations, the American people openly embrace them. Only in modern America would the people give money to candidates who promise to violate their oath of office and usurp power and then stand in line to vote for them.

The American people are constitutionally illiterate because government wants it that way. An informed populace is a threat to the usurpations of power being advanced by Democrats and Republicans. If these parties wanted the American people to be constitutionally literate, then they would insist that the Constitution be taught backwards and forwards in civics classes. Instead, children are taught that the Constitution is an outdated document that is not suited to the needs of modern America. This is a recipe for tyranny because it allows government to define the limits of its power.

To many Americans, the directions for programming their VCR are easier to understand than the Constitution. James Madison, who is recognized as the father of the Constitution, provided a basic overview of the powers of the federal government in 2 paragraphs. In Federalist Essay No. 45, Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security.

Now compare all the reasons you support or oppose President Bush or candidate Kerry, other than foreign affairs, to Madison's breakdown of the powers of the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government granted any general authority over children, schools, healthcare, flu shots, jobs, the economy, or any of the other domestic issues being discussed by these candidates. Thus, their promises to intervene in these areas shows they are either corrupt or ignorant and not qualified to be President of the United States.

Since the Constitution does not vest the federal government with any general authority over domestic issues, it follows that the office of the president does not have any authority over these issues either. [For an overview of the constitutional powers of the president, see--"The President doesn't have any Constitutional Authority over the Economy".

When a challenger claims the setting president is responsible for job loss, and the president counters that he created jobs, they are both lying because neither the federal government nor the president has the constitutional authority to create jobs outside of government. Even if the federal government had the constitutional authority to create jobs, that power would be vested in Congress, not the president, because the office of the president does not have any lawmaking power. A president merely signs or rejects legislation submitted to him by Congress.

Media pundits and politicians always tell us how important it is to vote. They tell us that not voting for candidates from one of the two major parties is a wasted vote. In my mind, voting for presidential candidates who promise to usurp power, irrerspective of their party affiliation, is the ultimate wasted vote because it signals government that we approve of their usurpations.

John Adams said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." Unless the American people become constitutionally literate in a big hurry and reject candidates who promise to operate outside of the Constitution, the continued support of these candidates at the ballot box will eventually cost us our freedom.

Archives

The Founders did not Grant the Federal Judiciary the Power to Interpret the Constitution

Have Conservative Talk Show Hosts Sold Out the Constitution for the Republican Party?

The 16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax

What Happened to our System of Limited Government?

The ·2004 Declaration of Independence

You will be Not be Voting for a Presidential Candidate in the November Election

The New York Times wants the Electoral College Abolished

The Flawed Second Amendment Debate

Is the Federal Government Supreme and Above the States?

What Happens if there is a Tie Vote in the Up-coming Presidential Election?

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade