| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle (new link) |
| |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
November
11, 2008 "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." While I totally agree with Boortz's goal, a Tenth Amendment Commission is not the answer because the federal government is using clauses in the body of the Constitution to nullify the principle enumerated in the Amendment. Thus, the Tenth Amendment cannot be invoked to prevent the federal government from exercising the powers Boortz wants returned to the States. When the Constitution was adopted, it established a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this system of government, every power not granted is denied. Even though the Constitution was founded on this principle, it was feared the federal government would eventually attempt to circumvent this system of government and exercise powers not granted. As a result, it was proposed to add an amendment to the Constitution to set this principle in stone. [Note: even if the Tenth Amendment had not been added or was removed, the principle that it recognizes would not be diminished because the Amendment is not the source of the principle. The Amendment was intended to be a secondary restraint on federal power]. The Founders believed the system of limited government, coupled with the additional restraint enumerated in the Tenth Amendment would form an impregnable shield to protect the States and their people from any abuse of power by the federal government. Unfortunately, the federal government has found a way to penetrate this shield. The prohibition enumerated in the Tenth Amendment only applies when the federal government attempts to exercise a power NOT granted by the Constitution. It cannot be invoked to prohibit Congress from exercising a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution. This gave the power hungry politicians in Washington D.C. an idea. If they could get their political appointees in the federal judiciary to re-define or expand the scope and meaning of existing provisions in the body of the Constitution, they could by-pass the additional restraint placed on their power by the Tenth Amendment. This is precisely what has happened. During President Franklin Roosevelt's "New (Raw) Deal" assault on the Constitution, his administration did not want to expose its power grab to the scrutiny of the States and the American people. He needed to find ways to acquire more power without resorting to the amendment process outlined in Article V of the Constitution. His administration, using the threat of a Court packing scheme, succeeded in getting the United States Supreme Court to perform a judicial coup d'etat on two key provisions in the body of the Constitution. The unconstitutional modification of these provisions has given the federal government virtually unlimited power over every aspect of human existence in these United States and all but nullified the Tenth Amendment. The first clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. This provision grants Congress the power "[t]o lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." The federal government derives ALL of its power to impose taxes, including income taxes, from this Clause. As stated in this provision, Congress can only impose taxes for three purposes. First, to "pay the debts...of the United States." This provision was inserted, primarily, to give the federal government the ability to extinguish the existing debts of the United States [pre Constitution] and was not intended to grant Congress the discretionary power to find ways to incur new debts. Second, to "provide for the common Defense...of the United States." This provision enumerates the primary purpose of the federal government and grants Congress the power to raise the needed revenue. Third, to "provide for the general welfare of the United States." This provision, commonly known as "the General Welfare Clause," was intended to LIMIT the power of Congress to tax and spend. As noted above, the scope of this clause has been judicially expanded and is now the "constitutional" basis for the myriad of federal spending programs that consume the bulk of taxes extracted from the American people. The second clause being used to expand federal power is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Commonly known as, the "Commerce Clause, this provision grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." In his 1913 book, "The Framing of the Constitution," Max Farrand explained, in part, why this provision was incorporated into the Constitution: "Pending a grant of power to congress over matters of commerce, the states acted individually. A uniform policy was necessary, and while a pretense was made of acting in unison to achieve a much desired end, it is evident that selfish motives frequently dictated what was done. Any state which enjoyed superior conditions to a neighboring state was only too apt to take advantage of that fact. Some of the states, as James Madison described it, 'having no convenient ports for foreign commerce, were subject to be taxed by their neighbors, through whose ports their commerce was carried on.'... The Americans were an agricultural and trading people. Interference with the arteries of commerce was cutting off the very life-blood of the nation and something had to be done." The purpose of the words "regulate commerce among the several States" was to establish a free trade zone between the several States. This provision granted Congress the power to make regular, or normalize, commerce between individual State and individual State. The emergence of the Commerce Clause as a "new" and all encompassing source of federal power was addressed in a speech by Alfred Clark before the Oregon Bar Association on September 2, 1943. Mr. Clark stated, in part: "Today, in a very real sense, law no longer governs the American people. They are governed by regulations, orders and directives issued by one or the other of our multiple Federal bureaus. I am not now referring to war regulation and the like, but to conditions existing before the war, and which, unless the trend is checked, are likely to continue and to intensify after the war is over. This has been accomplished, to a very large extent, through a new and, in many aspects, a startling interpretation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, which is now being used to obliterate the States and convert our system into a highly centralized form of government, exercising uncontrolled police power in every State, over all, or nearly all, local affairs and industries. The commerce clause of the Constitution is now pressed into service as the basis for asserting the power of unlimited control and all regulation of all local and State affairs." Mr. Clark stated through a startling "new" interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the federal government was attempting to obliterate the system of limited government established by the Constitution and regulate every aspect of human existence throughout the United States. After discussing several decisions by the Supreme Court, Clark explained the chain of causation, as defined by the Court, to be followed in determining what constitutes interstate commerce under the Court's "new" interpretation. He used the following example to illustrate the scope of federal power as a result of several decisions by the Court: "This may sound to you like a soporific nursery rhyme. Not so. On the contrary it is modern judicial logic. Indeed, if Junior decides to emulate Popeye and insists upon a double portion of spinach at the dinner table, thus increasing the demand on the market, and lessening the supply to meet the demand, his act may so affect interstate commerce as to bring him within the ambit of Federal control." The simple act of consuming food, according to decisions by the United States Supreme Court, can be used by the federal government as a pretense to bring an individual within the scope of federal control. Under this re-write of the Constitution from the bench, the federal government can regulate, or criminalize, any activity that substantially affects, or has the potential to substantially affect, interstate commerce. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that growing food for your family's consumption can subject you to federal control because it affects the flow of food in commerce [if you grow vegetables you don't have to purchase vegetables]. Because these two Clauses fall in the class of powers granted to Congress, they are immune from the additional restraint imposed on the federal government by the Tenth Amendment because the Amendment only applies to powers NOT granted. Thus, the Tenth Amendment has been basically removed as a constitutional method to control the federal usurpations of power we are experiencing today. Even if the Amendment could be invoked to curb federal usurpations of power, most Americans would probably not support the effort because they do not have the ability to distinguish between constitutional government and the usurpation of power. To these individuals usurpation of power is the norm and any serious attempt to curb federal power would be seen as a threat to their well-being. The very people who perpetuate the unconstitutional expansion of federal power would demonize the crusaders and rally the sheeple against them. After all, why would the recipients of government largess side with the people who want to stop it? Sorry Mr.
Boortz but it's highly unlikely the dumb masses, as you call them, share
your desire to restore constitutional government and return power to the
States. They would rather reap the benefits of unconstitutional government
than oppose it. Every time they clamor for more government the politicians
gleefully comply and the noose tightens on us all. Unfortunately, the
Tenth Amendment will not save us.
Your
comments and feedback are welcome!
Some other, related reading: The Flawed Second Amendment Debate The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment? The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court
Now Available! See Editor's review here. "The Bill
of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights" $10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax. P.S.C.S. Email any questions concerning the book/booklet to Bob at-govtnitwit [at] yahoo.com
Robert
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
the Constitution.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages. |
Please see the bottom of the page for Bob's book offer. Archives The 2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3l Rudy Giuliani shows his Ignorance of the Second Amendment The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court The Second Amendment Question before the Supreme Court is Constitutionally Flawed and Dangerous It's Time To Break Out The Torches And Pitchforks! Constitution to Hillary, Obama and McCain Congress Makes the Laws not the President Do the American People really want Liberty and Constitutional Government? The Real ID Act proves the Federal Government is Not the All Powerful Oz There is no Legal Requirement for an American Citizen to have a Social Security Number The American People have become Servants to Government Employees A Republic, if you can Keep It Is Obama Ineligible to be President? The Game Changing Play John McCain and the Republicans Need to Win the Election Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Qualifications to be President Dismissed just as Predicted Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
|
|||||||||
 |
|
