My last article was intended to show that the truth no longer matters to most people. Instead, I got the impression that people thought my intent was to focus solely on the Civil War. Not so, I just picked the Civil War to use as an example of how the truth is ignored and people believe whatever they want to believe. So, to prove that I was not simply writing just another Civil War article, I decided to write a second When The Truth No Longer Matters articles; a sequel if you will.
I wonder how people would react were I, or anyone else for that matter, were to come out in a public forum and call for the dismantling of the federal government and the imprisonment of all those who work for it. Would people consider me a lunatic, a subversive, or a threat to national security?
Do you call the FBI’s task force on organized crime subversive? Do you call local law enforcement’s task forces on gangs subversive or a threat to national security? No, you support them because the actions of organized crime rings and local gangs violate the law. What if I were to prove that our government is also violating the law; would you still consider me crazy?
As of late I have come to the conclusion that we should never have ratified our Constitution; that it created a system with too many loopholes which could be exploited to allow the government it creates to become oppressive.
There were those at the convention which produced our Constitution who sought a much stronger system of government than what is outlined in the Constitution. Fortunately there were those who were prudently jealous of State sovereignty and individual liberty who sought to restrain the powers granted this new system of government.
Still, upon producing a Constitution, those who produced and supported it faced an uphill battle in getting the States to accept it. Many an ardent lover of liberty raised his voice in opposition to this proposed Constitution, none more fervently than Patrick Henry, who declared, “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”
Henry would go on to say, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.” (Speech of June 4, 1788)
Yet James Madison, Father of the Constitution, would counter, “Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter.” (Federalist 45)
From the two statements it is clear that one wished to see the States retain their sovereignty while the other felt if it was in the best interest of the nation the States should surrender their sovereignty to this newly created federal government.
Even so, a few paragraphs later Madison would promise that “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.”
Before I get into any specifics on what the Constitution itself says; does that even remotely sound like the government we have today? I didn’t think so. So, was Madison lying to us or is it just that we have let our government overstep the powers granted it by the Constitution?
One of the fatal flaws of our Constitution is that it relies entirely upon the virtue of the people to select good, honest, people to represent them in government. If the people fail in this important task government will inevitably become corrupt. You say “But we still get to vote for who represents us.” And I say, “But you may as well be choosing whether to drink a glass full of arsenic or a glass full of cyanide.” What difference does your choice make when there is no one among those whom you choose from will adhere to what the Constitution says?
Let me put it in terms you may better understand. Let’s say you own a house. From the outside the house looks nice; you’ve kept it up and done a great job of landscaping around it. However, little do you know that inside the house termites are eating away at the framework that holds your house together. So from outward appearances you have a nice home, but inside it is rotten to the core. Such is the same with our system of government; we have a president, a congress, and a supreme court, but the limits upon the powers granted government and the boundaries between the branches have become blurred or nonexistent. It too is corrupt and we have a Constitutional Republic only upon outward glances. Further examination would prove that it has become as criminal in its acts as any Mafia crime family.
Another flaw, this one even more serious, is, as Patrick Henry said, “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.”
When our government passes a law it always includes a penalty for violation of the law. So if you, as a citizen, disobey that law you can be fined, imprisoned, and killed even, if you disobey. What if, and I’m just tossing this out there, one of the laws our government passes is clearly a violation of the powers granted government by the Constitution? How are we to penalize them for their violation of the Supreme Law of the Land?
You can send your representative letters or call their offices; but does that repeal the law? I have sent numerous letters opposing legislation, only to receive a token form letter in response, thanking me for my thoughts and ensuring me that they will be given great weight in deciding whether to vote for or against the legislation. But if they go ahead and vote in favor of a bill, and it becomes law, what recourse do the people have? Unless the States act to nullify that law within their borders, or enough people choose to exercise their rights as jurors to nullify the law there is no direct action we can take to force our government into adhering to the specific powers granted it by the Constitution. And remember, as Madison promised in Federalist 45, those powers ARE few and defined; not unlimited and subject to construction.
Far too many people do not understand what exactly our Constitution is. Technically it is just a piece of paper with words written upon it. How is it then that it gives any man, or group of men, any power and authority over us? It was by the consent of the people that life was breathed into the Constitution, and it is only by our will that the authority we grant government remains. At any time the will of the people could change and the powers given to government revoked; and government would have no say in the matter.
Everything I’ve just said can be summed up by something written by Thomas Paine in his book The Rights of Man:
“It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.
The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”
You see, the Constitution not only limits the powers granted government, it prevents government from acting upon the sudden impulses and urges of the people by limiting the authority granted it. It therefore is not just a law limiting government; it is a law limiting what we can ask government to do on our behalf.
If you can’t wrap your head around that last paragraph then there really is no reason for me to continue. The Constitution is the law which governs the actions of our government, and if the government violates it then their actions become criminal. It is that simple.
The Constitution divides our government into three separate branches; each with its own unique purpose, and specific powers, and when any branch oversteps its authority it acts criminally. For instance, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war.
If war is simply defined as a state of armed conflict between two nations then anytime our military is engaged against an enemy it is a state of war.
Therefore, as George Washington said, “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”
Now there is a legal maxim, or principle, that you need to understand. If we, as the body of the people, grant government a certain specific power, and specify which branch of government shall hold that power, that branch cannot further delegate that power to another branch without violating the Constitution.
This principle, “Delegata potestas non potest delegari” or no delegated powers can be further delegated, is also found in Locke’s Second Treatise, wherein Locke states, “The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. The people alone can appoint the form of the common-wealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, We will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms, no body else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws, but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen, and authorized to make laws for them. The power of the legislative, being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.”
Therefore, no matter how much the public clamors for it, the president cannot, without a declaration of war from Congress, send troops off to fight and die in some foreign land. Neither can the Congress pass a so-called ‘War Powers Act’ which gives the president limited authority to send troops off to fight for certain shorter, more specific periods. If the president wishes to send one U.S. fighting man off to fight abroad, or at home for that matter, he must gain approval from Congress or his act becomes a violation of the separation of powers between the branches, and therefore criminal.
Can you tell me when the last time Congress officially declared war? It was during World War II. Since then, the Korean Conflict, Vietnam, all these UN sanctioned peace keeping missions, such as our involvement in Kosovo along with Gulf War I & II all have been undertaken unconstitutionally. That alone; all the lives lost and the debt incurred by those wars, ought to be enough to call for criminal charges to be brought against our government.
But, unfortunately there is more…much more.
If Congress is the lawmaking body, then Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is the law which applies to what powers they have been granted the authority to enact laws upon. Had anyone taken the time to sit down and read Article 1 Section 8 they would have seen that the actual powers granted Congress are few; much fewer than people believe them to be.
When James Madison was standing before the Virginia Assembly which was considering voting in favor of, or in opposition to the Constitution, he promised those in attendance that ” [T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”
Our government does not own the United States, it is a body which represents the United States. How is it that the government can expand its powers and buy up vast tracts of land that rightfully belong to the States? How is it that it can arbitrarily decide that certain tracts of land be set aside as National Parks, Wildlife Preserves, or simply government owned land? Article 1, Section 8 only grants government the authority and jurisdiction over an area 10 square miles for the seat of our nation’s capital…NOTHING MORE!
How is it that our government can pass laws mandating that we purchase health insurance or participate in a retirement plan, (Social Security)? How is it that our government can enact laws, and then establish huge bureaucracies to enforce those laws, which violate our most basic of rights? There is the BATF which imposes governmental restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Second Amendment is the words arms defined; it is merely our government interpreting the meaning of the word arms, and by our acquiescence that these laws exist; yet they are unconstitutional.
There is the DEA which regulates what drugs we are allowed to take for recreational usage when nowhere in the Constitution does it grant government the authority to proscribe what drugs we choose to take. To ban alcohol they had to pass a Constitutional Amendment, (which was later repealed). To tell us we cannot smoke marijuana, or take the drugs of our choice is an usurpation of power and again, unconstitutional.
The widespread data mining and monitoring of our private conversations by the NSA is also unconstitutional as it violates the 4th Amendment’s protection of privacy. It does not matter if it is done in the name of National Security, it still violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the case of U.S. v Robel the Court ruled, “It would indeed by ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties…which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”
Then there is the FED. The Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. In 1792 Congress passed the first Coinage Act which established the US Mint to coin the money to be used within these States united. That was within the Necessary and Proper powers granted Congress; for how where they to make the money themselves? So it was within their authority to establish a mint to coin our currency.
However, numerous times throughout our nation’s history, our government has sanctioned a National Bank to manage our nation’s monetary supply. The most recent of which is the Federal Reserve. To give over completely the printing and managing of our monetary supply to a privately owned bank, regardless of whether it has any measure of Congressional oversight, is a violation of the powers granted government. Remember no delegated power can be further delegated; therefore, if we delegate the power to coin our money to Congress, they cannot delegate it to a privately owned institution.
Remember, we are a Republic, not a democracy. In a republic the power is given to representatives to act on behalf of those they represent; but it is limited by law as to the extent of the power they exercise. If you want government to have more power than the only legitimate way is through Constitutional Amendment. As George Washington said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
Today there are so many things that people take for granted, or expect out of government, that ages ago would never have been accepted. Many of the programs which go towards benefiting groups or certain categories of citizens would have been vetoed by presidents, instead of being talking points on their political campaigns.
In 1817 President James Madison vetoed a public works bill, saying, “I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.”
In 1854 President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
In 1877 President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
President James Garfield spoke out against one of the very things Donald Trump is now campaigning upon, the creation of jobs in the U.S., “It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”
If these things violated the Constitution then, they violate them today. Yet we tolerate and expect them even from our government. That does not make these acts lawful though.
I could go on and on with violations of the Constitution by the actions of our government, but I have already provided sufficient evidence that our government violates the law which governs its actions. Need I bore you with even more?
But as I said in the first of these articles, the truth no longer matters to people; they are going to let government go on doing these things because in some manner it benefits them personally.
But as Patrick Henry said, the problem with this Constitution is that it does not allow us the means to fight tyranny, and that is exactly what our government has become; tyrannical. It matters not if you support the measures they pass, if they overstep the limits to their authority they are against the law; and those who enact them are criminals.
And people will still wonder why I choose not to participate in selecting which criminal cabal gets to run the government while I wonder why people even support the actions of this government at all.