PatriotG
05-19-2008, 08:32 AM
A Constitutional Federal Republic (http://www.restoretherepublic.org/?p=156)
God is the ultimate mathematician. When he created the universe it was not a haphazard affair, or the illogical meandering of a micro-managing maniac. He created a set of rules by which this very complex existence can function without His intervention on every level. It is logical. It is pure genius.
We live in an existence that follows pattern, upon pattern derived from logical equations. Years of research developing complex formulas have led us to find out aspects of the universe that we could not have imagined.
When ‘the People’ of this country created the Bill of Rights, it was set out as a manifesto of logic, which prevents the state from intrusions on those most precious of inalienable rights. It is an enumeration of rights that would secure the blessings of a government ‘of the People,’ and not that of the state.
The body text of the Constitution is a charter for laying out the Republic, and stating the specific powers ‘the People’ have granted to the government. The powers granted to three branches of government are few, and they are not subject to interpretation, as most seem to believe. The fact that in 1787 there were no automobiles does not suggest that the right to travel freely should be regulated by the government today. The fact that the Flintlock was the most modern firearm at that time, does not suggest that our Founding Fathers could not see advancement in weaponry that should force us to give up the right to secure a free state by bearing arms.
Mathematics is logic posted in numbers from which the same calculation consistently produces the same results, and so to was it meant for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Article 1, Section 8, contains 18 clauses of powers so granted to the government. If you would like to find out what the governments power is with regard to the Coining of money you will go to Clause 5. You will not go to Clause 8, or the ‘General Welfare’ statement. You will go to the clause that has been there since the inception. It is logical.
If you want to know what powers are bestowed upon the government with regard to the freedom of speech you will go to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” If you were to look for any power concerning the restriction of that freedom in Article 1, Section 8 you would draw the same null every time you look there. And again ‘General Welfare’ does not imply, suggest, or mean, in any form that some mysterious power to restrict free speech, be it compelling or otherwise, exists.
Congress is restricted from making such laws, but what of the President, and the states you ask? Try as I may, I cannot find in the mere 3,500 words of the Constitution the power granted for presidential decrees that would pass as law, or for the states to disregard the supreme law of the land, and denigrate any precious inalienable rights.
What you will find in Article VI, Clause 2 pertaining to any power grab by some branch of government is this; “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
And then to remind us all that our representatives are bound by the tenet’s of the Constitution Article VI, Clause 3 states; “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”
Some would attempt to explain that the government has a ‘compelling interest’ to regulate certain inalienable rights. I say hogwash. Where would the logic be to enumerating prohibitions on the federal government, but allowing free reign to interpret anything with abstract words such as compelling, or living? But wait, we are talking logic, which appears to be a subject long since forgotten when speaking of rights.
The Constitution does make us guarantees that appear to be insurmountable when applying logic, but easily countermanded when a ‘compelling interest’ is used as a trump card. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states; “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” What ‘compelling interest’ might the government have not to carry out such a forthright assignment?
And then Section 4 states; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
It is not a complex task to understand that the thought at the inception of this nation was to restrict the powers of government, be it federal or local. If I as a citizen of any state have the right to voice my opinion on the deplorable state of the government, where does the government find its enumerated power to squelch that right?
So in reading the Constitution, and those of the states, there must be a beneficial relationship to each other that has been prescribed by its authors, and then ratified by ‘the People.’ One does not write a contract that benefits others then pen another to completely discredit his position in the same context. It would be completely illogical in one instance to create then destroy the identical right, but political motivations, ignorance, and greed tend not to conform to reasoning.
This is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Despite the ignorant ramblings of media talking heads, and the shrill cries of every would-be dictator from the local mayor to the president, this is not a democracy, nor a representative republic. Neither you, nor I have the right to intrude upon the lives of our fellow citizen. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing school system. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing banking system. And we cannot, and should never consider imposing upon them a judicial system that has completely turned its back on the Constitution.
This was meant to be a form of government, without government, as it was formerly known, but rather a system through which the people would control all aspects of their own being. My ‘general welfare’ and that of my family is my concern. While I may need help from time to time I depend on my ingenuity, and in dire need the good will of my neighbor and other members of the family so well healed.
When we ask of the government any function not so enumerated we have called for an intrusion of some right, be it spelled out or implied by the needs of nature, and the human condition.
A Constitutional Federal Republic is not a representative republic in the common thinking. We send our representatives to congress, or to the state legislature, to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the Constitution. That is to say unless you can find a tenet under which a proposed legislation is presented it is your duty, and oath of office, to oppose that bill.
It is clearly stated in the writings of our Founding Fathers leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, and recognized as the basic tenet of law by the Supreme Court. In Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442, the Court stated, “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Some might be convinced that there is no difference between a representative republic and a Constitutional Federal Republic, but they are wrong. Who does your elected official represent? Is he interested in your rights, or mine? Your interests, or mine? I vote for my representative based on his knowledge of the Constitution, and his willingness to defend it, even at the cost of his position. He/She, whoever typically has only one interest at heart; placating the majority so that they can be labeled incumbent.
A representative of the people should have but one light to be guided by, and that is the rule of law, and all law in our country originates in the Constitution. You cannot be a representative of all the people if you choose sides with the majority, and therein is the prescription for a representative republic.
So, when I hear someone proclaim that the government has failed, I am led to just one conclusion, we Citizens of the United States have failed in our responsibility to understand what form of government was established.
The government has failed in none of its endeavors. It has managed to use the ‘General Welfare’ statement as a tool to extract the wealth of the nation by creating agencies and benefits that could not be reconciled using either the Constitution, or basic math.
It is the ‘compelling interest’ line that has been used in order to infringe on the most fundamental of rights. It has placed us into wars without proper congressional authority. It has encumbered us with licensing schemes under which the government can confiscate our property. And foremost, it has convinced the vast majority that this government allows any form of democracy.
I seek no rights, privileges or benefits from my neighbor other than that he respects my right to live as I choose, as long as I do not cause him or her any personal harm. If we believe this is a democracy we are free to impose our will, and stupidity, to the point that we jeopardize all our freedoms, and certainly the integrity of the overall structure.
The government thrives as it has moved us from a Constitutional Federal Republic to the abhorrent form of democracy. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
In Federalist 10, James Madison also warned us that, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
As we go forward into the 21st Century it is with dire need that we must return to that form of government that was logically set out at the birth of the nation. We have no choice, but to live by the rules that were established upon the bedrock of liberty.
Do we have so little respect for our Forbearers, and so little regard for our posterity as to stand idly by as the government successfully infringes upon each and every right held so precious as to be purchased at the price of blood?
Are we so blinded by our own ambitions, and foibles, as to not be able to see the burden that we place on the backs of our children by adhering to the notions, and they are nothing more than notions, that this is some form of government that was completely repugnant to the authors of the Constitution?
It is time to dust off the history books, re-educate our children and ourselves. Any other road would be a journey to the destruction of this Constitutional Federal Republic.
God is the ultimate mathematician. When he created the universe it was not a haphazard affair, or the illogical meandering of a micro-managing maniac. He created a set of rules by which this very complex existence can function without His intervention on every level. It is logical. It is pure genius.
We live in an existence that follows pattern, upon pattern derived from logical equations. Years of research developing complex formulas have led us to find out aspects of the universe that we could not have imagined.
When ‘the People’ of this country created the Bill of Rights, it was set out as a manifesto of logic, which prevents the state from intrusions on those most precious of inalienable rights. It is an enumeration of rights that would secure the blessings of a government ‘of the People,’ and not that of the state.
The body text of the Constitution is a charter for laying out the Republic, and stating the specific powers ‘the People’ have granted to the government. The powers granted to three branches of government are few, and they are not subject to interpretation, as most seem to believe. The fact that in 1787 there were no automobiles does not suggest that the right to travel freely should be regulated by the government today. The fact that the Flintlock was the most modern firearm at that time, does not suggest that our Founding Fathers could not see advancement in weaponry that should force us to give up the right to secure a free state by bearing arms.
Mathematics is logic posted in numbers from which the same calculation consistently produces the same results, and so to was it meant for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Article 1, Section 8, contains 18 clauses of powers so granted to the government. If you would like to find out what the governments power is with regard to the Coining of money you will go to Clause 5. You will not go to Clause 8, or the ‘General Welfare’ statement. You will go to the clause that has been there since the inception. It is logical.
If you want to know what powers are bestowed upon the government with regard to the freedom of speech you will go to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” If you were to look for any power concerning the restriction of that freedom in Article 1, Section 8 you would draw the same null every time you look there. And again ‘General Welfare’ does not imply, suggest, or mean, in any form that some mysterious power to restrict free speech, be it compelling or otherwise, exists.
Congress is restricted from making such laws, but what of the President, and the states you ask? Try as I may, I cannot find in the mere 3,500 words of the Constitution the power granted for presidential decrees that would pass as law, or for the states to disregard the supreme law of the land, and denigrate any precious inalienable rights.
What you will find in Article VI, Clause 2 pertaining to any power grab by some branch of government is this; “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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
And then to remind us all that our representatives are bound by the tenet’s of the Constitution Article VI, Clause 3 states; “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”
Some would attempt to explain that the government has a ‘compelling interest’ to regulate certain inalienable rights. I say hogwash. Where would the logic be to enumerating prohibitions on the federal government, but allowing free reign to interpret anything with abstract words such as compelling, or living? But wait, we are talking logic, which appears to be a subject long since forgotten when speaking of rights.
The Constitution does make us guarantees that appear to be insurmountable when applying logic, but easily countermanded when a ‘compelling interest’ is used as a trump card. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 states; “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” What ‘compelling interest’ might the government have not to carry out such a forthright assignment?
And then Section 4 states; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
It is not a complex task to understand that the thought at the inception of this nation was to restrict the powers of government, be it federal or local. If I as a citizen of any state have the right to voice my opinion on the deplorable state of the government, where does the government find its enumerated power to squelch that right?
So in reading the Constitution, and those of the states, there must be a beneficial relationship to each other that has been prescribed by its authors, and then ratified by ‘the People.’ One does not write a contract that benefits others then pen another to completely discredit his position in the same context. It would be completely illogical in one instance to create then destroy the identical right, but political motivations, ignorance, and greed tend not to conform to reasoning.
This is a Constitutional Federal Republic. Despite the ignorant ramblings of media talking heads, and the shrill cries of every would-be dictator from the local mayor to the president, this is not a democracy, nor a representative republic. Neither you, nor I have the right to intrude upon the lives of our fellow citizen. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing school system. We cannot impose upon them to support a failing banking system. And we cannot, and should never consider imposing upon them a judicial system that has completely turned its back on the Constitution.
This was meant to be a form of government, without government, as it was formerly known, but rather a system through which the people would control all aspects of their own being. My ‘general welfare’ and that of my family is my concern. While I may need help from time to time I depend on my ingenuity, and in dire need the good will of my neighbor and other members of the family so well healed.
When we ask of the government any function not so enumerated we have called for an intrusion of some right, be it spelled out or implied by the needs of nature, and the human condition.
A Constitutional Federal Republic is not a representative republic in the common thinking. We send our representatives to congress, or to the state legislature, to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the Constitution. That is to say unless you can find a tenet under which a proposed legislation is presented it is your duty, and oath of office, to oppose that bill.
It is clearly stated in the writings of our Founding Fathers leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, and recognized as the basic tenet of law by the Supreme Court. In Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442, the Court stated, “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Some might be convinced that there is no difference between a representative republic and a Constitutional Federal Republic, but they are wrong. Who does your elected official represent? Is he interested in your rights, or mine? Your interests, or mine? I vote for my representative based on his knowledge of the Constitution, and his willingness to defend it, even at the cost of his position. He/She, whoever typically has only one interest at heart; placating the majority so that they can be labeled incumbent.
A representative of the people should have but one light to be guided by, and that is the rule of law, and all law in our country originates in the Constitution. You cannot be a representative of all the people if you choose sides with the majority, and therein is the prescription for a representative republic.
So, when I hear someone proclaim that the government has failed, I am led to just one conclusion, we Citizens of the United States have failed in our responsibility to understand what form of government was established.
The government has failed in none of its endeavors. It has managed to use the ‘General Welfare’ statement as a tool to extract the wealth of the nation by creating agencies and benefits that could not be reconciled using either the Constitution, or basic math.
It is the ‘compelling interest’ line that has been used in order to infringe on the most fundamental of rights. It has placed us into wars without proper congressional authority. It has encumbered us with licensing schemes under which the government can confiscate our property. And foremost, it has convinced the vast majority that this government allows any form of democracy.
I seek no rights, privileges or benefits from my neighbor other than that he respects my right to live as I choose, as long as I do not cause him or her any personal harm. If we believe this is a democracy we are free to impose our will, and stupidity, to the point that we jeopardize all our freedoms, and certainly the integrity of the overall structure.
The government thrives as it has moved us from a Constitutional Federal Republic to the abhorrent form of democracy. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
In Federalist 10, James Madison also warned us that, “In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
As we go forward into the 21st Century it is with dire need that we must return to that form of government that was logically set out at the birth of the nation. We have no choice, but to live by the rules that were established upon the bedrock of liberty.
Do we have so little respect for our Forbearers, and so little regard for our posterity as to stand idly by as the government successfully infringes upon each and every right held so precious as to be purchased at the price of blood?
Are we so blinded by our own ambitions, and foibles, as to not be able to see the burden that we place on the backs of our children by adhering to the notions, and they are nothing more than notions, that this is some form of government that was completely repugnant to the authors of the Constitution?
It is time to dust off the history books, re-educate our children and ourselves. Any other road would be a journey to the destruction of this Constitutional Federal Republic.