The Constitution

Along with the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution of the United States is the most sacred of secular documents.  It is neither left nor right.  It is our working blueprint to build and grow
our nation.  It is unfortunate, to say
the least, that it has been trampled, twisted and perverted to a point where it
is nearly unidentifiable as the supreme law of our land.

H.R. 125, the Enumerated Powers Act, could go a long
way to return us to the Constitutional Republic (not Democracy) we were meant
to be.  The purpose of the Act is “To require
Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States
Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.”

God bless Glenn Beck.
He has shown, as a case in point, Van Jones as a self-avowed
commie.  The Green Jobs Czar for Mr.
Obama.  The only thing that can be
agreeable about Mr. Jones is his statement that he wants to completely change
government.  The thing that can’t be
agreed to is that he wants a socialist government, like his former boss, Mr.

Thanks to some reportage by people like Mr. Beck and
Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. Jones is no longer the Green Jobs Czar.  (Hopefully, many more “Czars” will be of the
former variety.)

The agreeable part of Van Jones’ statements, i.e.,
that Mr. Obama’s administration wants to totally change government, is
something in disagreement.  They want to
change the government to a foreign socialistic type that is anathema to the
American mindset.  Their thoughts are
completely contrary to our American Constitutional Republic.

This may actually be a Godsend in that many Americans
are waking up to the fact that we are straying too far from the Judeo-Christian
Republic we were envisioned to be.  Our
Constitution has been trampled and ignored for too many years.  It’s way past time that we demand a return to
our Constitutional Republican form of government.  That is to say, we need to legalize the
Constitution.  All bills, past, present, and future, need to have a basis in our Constitution, and if they don’t they need to be abolished, voted down, burned at the stake, and buried.

The many entitlements that our politicians have passed
with their legislation will make this difficult to achieve.  Those receiving said entitlements won’t want
to give them up.  We need to express to
them the error of all of our ways.  If we
continue to hand out such entitlements then we will eventually go broke, and
that time is at hand.  If we’re broke, as
a nation, we will cease to be.  We will
be overtaken by a stronger force and/or anarchy will ensue.

To put it in simplistic terms, there is a great quote
from the TV show “That 70’s Show” wherein the character Red states that,
“Without rules, we’re just a bunch of tree dwelling crap flingers.”  Funny as far as sitcoms go, sad and true as
far as society goes.


2 Responses to The Constitution

  1. Cap says:

    Does not the constitution give congress the power to make laws for “the general welfare of the United States?” I think that is found in Article 1, Section 8. What are the limitations on “general welfare”? Is a law not for the general welfare if one does not agree with it?

    The drafters were right on by giving congress power to enact laws, and the judiciary power to interpret and enforce them. There have been innumerable instances where a law has been deemed to be unconstitutional.
    No where does the Constitution provide that congress must specify the source of authority for a particular law. Where is the authority for HR 125? Oh yeah, maybe the “general welfare” language……..

    • revsimo says:

      It is true that Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to make laws for “the general welfare of the United States.” The authority for H.R. 125 is the Constitution itself which is a limiting force against the power of the government. James Madison, in Federalist #41, addresses this issue when he writes:

      Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to 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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

      Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

      But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

      The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s