I know that lately I have come across as sounding rather harsh and critical of my fellow countrymen, and I have found myself on the receiving end of some rather sharp rebukes for my views. Yet I feel I am completely justified when I say that the average American has absolutely no idea of how their government is supposed to function, and the limits to its authority.
To defend my view, I urge you to go to the webpage that follows and watch the short video segment. It is a clip taken from the Tonight Show with Jay Leno in which he does his Jaywalking segment. In this particular video Mr. Leno goes to Universal Studios and asks average people questions that are among those required to pass the U.S. citizenship test. The answers he gets, to what should be common knowledge, is why I believe that there is no hope for this country, because the people don’t have the faintest idea as to the form, function, and limits upon their governments powers. The video can be found at: Jay Leno
Back on September 12, NBC Nightly News aired a clip of Barack Obama responding to a question from Brian Williams regarding the Tea Party. Mr. Obama stated, “But I do think that the extreme position that you hear that says government has no role to play in growing our economy that the federal government has no function to play in building a strong middle class is absolutely wrong. I reject that view.”
Mr. Obama can reject that view until he turns blue in the face, but it won’t change the fact that he is wrong. I don’t know whether Mr. Obama simply does not understand the purpose of government, or if he chooses to disregard the limits the Constitution imposes upon it. In either case, he, and Congress, gets away with, what can only be described as, criminal acts because the average person in this country is woefully ignorant regarding what the Constitution says.
When was the last time any of you reading this actually picked up a copy of the Constitution and read it? How many minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months can you say that you have spent researching the intent of the founding fathers in regards to that document? Yet you still honestly believe that you are educated enough to make informed decisions about who to choose to represent you?
Do you realize that the Constitution is more than simply a guideline which outlines the manner in which our government shall take, that it is in fact a law? Article 6 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”
The definition of the word law is: “The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.”
Notice that it says that a law REGULATES THE ACTIONS of the people to whom the law applies. Everyone knows that if you break a law, and get caught, there is some sort of penalty attached; anything from a ticket to the death penalty, depending upon the severity of the crime committed. Yet the Constitution is the ONLY law that I can think of that there is no penalty assessed to those who violate it. Yet those same people can enact laws which assess penalties upon us, even if the laws they enact are not among the powers specifically granted the government by the Constitution. Something is wrong with that picture if you want my honest opinion…very wrong with that picture.
Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, allow me to ask you a simple question. Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”
In 1875 the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Minor v Happersett. In their decision, the court ruled that a natural born citizen is a citizen born of both parents who are citizens of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama was the child of Stanley Ann Dunham, an American from Wichita Kansas, and Barack Obama Sr. a Kenyan who held British citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth. Since his father WAS NOT an American citizen, Barack Obama IS NOT a natural born citizen. It makes no difference if Obama was born in Kenya, in Hawaii as he claims, or if he had been born on the moon, since his father was not an American citizen, Barack Hussein Obama DOES NOT meet the Constitutional requirement to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
Although I completely disagree with his stance on all the issues that face this nation, my problem with Obama is that he is guilty of a crime, of holding an office in our government which he is not constitutionally eligible to hold.
Not only is Obama guilty, but every single member of Congress and all nine Supreme Court Justices. The Congress, including Ron Paul who so emphatically declares that the Constitution is the basis for all his actions, refuses to broach the subject. The Supreme Court has refused to hear numerous cases in which the truth would be made public. They are all guilty, yet we have no recourse, no path by which we can obtain justice. So what good are laws, even the supreme law of the land, when they are not being enforced?
But this is not solely about the eligibility of one Barack Obama to hold the office he holds, it is about the lack of understanding of the entire Constitution, and our government’s flagrant usurpation of undelegated powers.
You say that our government can do whatever it pleases because it IS our government, and they have all the power and authority to do these things. WRONG!!! We hear time and time again that our government can do these things because they are in the best interests of the nation, and that they are covered by the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but they are not!
In 1833 Joseph Story, who himself served on the Supreme Court, wrote the following in regards to the General Welfare Clause, “The plain import of the clause is that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress.”
If that is too difficult for you to understand, maybe something Thomas Jefferson said will be easier for you to comprehend, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” Therefore Congress cannot pass any law they deem in the public interest UNLESS it pertains to one of the specifically enumerated powers found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If they do, they have committed a crime.
George Washington once said that “The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” Ron Paul says the same thing, but apparently he does not think it applies to the eligibility of presidential candidates.
People seem to think that the Constitution is a living document, open for interpretation and continued revision as current events require. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)
People also seem to think that someone like me, an average person who works in a fruit packaging plant, is not capable of understanding the intricacies of the Constitution. Yet in another Supreme Court case, Martin v Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled, “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition.”
Finally, in the Supreme Court Case of Powell v McCormack, the Court ruled, “The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution.”
People accept that their government does the things it does because they have been accustomed to a government doing these things for as long as they can remember. Yet in the case of Amos v. Mosley, the Court ruled, “If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.” In other words, just because the legislature continues to pass laws that overstep their constitutional authority, it doesn’t mean that they are not breaking the law.
That concept is of even greater importance when the laws being enacted by their government infringe upon the rights of the people. In the case of Bell v Hood, the Court ruled that “History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.” That is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, to place those rights OFF LIMITS to the government. So every law that has been passed which, in some manner, infringes even in the slightest degree upon our rights is a crime against the people. As the Court ruled in Boyd v U.S. “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Yet the Courts have not done their duty to act as final defenders of those rights, therefore they are equally guilty of being, at best, silent accomplices in the commission of a crime against the people of this country.
In the case of State v Board of Examiners, the Court ruled, “Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.” Therefore, whenever the government enacts laws to make us safer from terrorism, even though these laws infringe upon our rights, they are a crime and are not to be tolerated.
Finally, in State v Sutton, the Court ruled, “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” Thomas Jefferson , in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, clearly stated, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
As James Otis said in 1764,” …supreme absolute power is originally and ultimately in the people; and they never did in fact freely, nor can they rightfully make an absolute, unlimited renunciation of this divine right.” We the people of these United States are the masters, not the servants to a government which believes it is the sole decider of what powers it will wield. It may be true that the justice system has failed us, that we have no legal means of overturning unconstitutional laws and infringements upon our rights, we do have the right, and the authority, to simply disobey those laws that clearly overstep the express powers granted our government.
You may think that by saying that I am a radical, that I am asking you to break the law. But that’s just it, these unconstitutional acts by our government are not legally enacted laws, they are violations of the supreme law of the land. And if the courts won’t help us uphold the law, then, as said in the opening sequence of the Russell Crowe version of Robin Hood, “In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.”
This may sound preposterous to you, especially when you have not been taught about the true purpose of our government. But “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” Dresden James
You may disagree with everything I have said, but I have the law, and numerous court rulings to support my position. Aside from an emotionally based response, what evidence can you provide to prove that I am wrong?
It may not matter to you that your government is guilty of these crimes, but it certainly matters to me. How would you feel if I decided that the law does not apply to me and that I decide that I am going to steal something from you? If that would outrage you, then you can imagine how I feel because, do to your ignorance and your apathy, my rights have been stripped away and my country is in shambles.
If only we had listened to Thomas Jefferson when he said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”