The Constitution: Use it or Lose it

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/us-constitution/1859-use-it-or-lose-it

Not being a devotee of late-night television, I had to be told by an acquaintance about a very insightful remark uttered by comedian Jay Leno. During the customary monologue at the start of his nightly show, Leno pointed to our nation’s leaders and said: "They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.

Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys; it’s worked for over 200 years; and [heck] we’re not using it any more."

Leno’s hyperbole contained an element of truth. While some deference is paid to procedural parts of the venerable document, its most substantive clauses have been consigned to a memory hole. The Constitution is honored in the sense that there are still three branches of government; the president still reports about "the state of the Union"; Congress does "lay and collect taxes"; and "compensation" is provided to those who serve in a government post.

However, the same cannot be said about the very first sentence in the main body of the Constitution. It states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." If all legislative powers reside in Congress, why have Supreme Court decisions attained "law of the land" status? And why is law made through executive orders and presidential decisions? Not only is this abuse tolerated, it’s celebrated. In 1998, Clinton adviser Paul Begala arrogantly described his boss’s repeated use of executive orders as, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." And Congress did nothing to stop this abuse.

Occasionally, a direct repudiation of a hugely important constitutional provision surfaces. Worried that a future president might take the nation into war, the Founders carefully assigned the war-declaration power solely to Congress. But Congress did not declare the wars we fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (both in 1991 and 2003). The Constitution wasn’t amended to account for this; it was simply ignored by the vast majority in Congress.

With war clouds gathering just two years ago, the House International Relations Committee met on October 3, 2002 and Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered a motion to declare war on Iraq. He announced his intention to vote against his own measure because he didn’t believe our nation should go to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. But he wanted to remind his colleagues that they alone possessed war-making power. If they wanted to go to war against Iraq, he reasoned, they should vote to declare war as required by the Constitution. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to Dr. Paul’s initiative with as clear a repudiation of the oath of office as has ever been uttered. He said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events [and are] no longer relevant to a modern society. Declaration of war is one of them.... [Your motion is] inappropriate, anachronistic, [and] it isn’t done anymore." And that was that. The committee defeated Dr. Paul’s measure 45-0.

Early in 1999, former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor Robert Reich claimed in an op-ed column that Americans need not worry about the looming impeachment process and its potential to interrupt the work of Congress. He assured all that the business of government would continue because the Federal Reserve now made economic decisions, the IMF dictated foreign policy, and the president decided whether or not to go to war. He concluded, "The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become irrelevant."

The Constitution is oftentimes trampled even when Congress legislates, since Congress may not pass any law it chooses, but must operate within the powers delegated to it. Some of the unconstitutional legislation is not even read by the lawmakers themselves. On October 24, 2001 in the wake of the 9-11 attack, the House of Representatives approved the USA Patriot Act that many now understand poses a threat to fundamental constitutionally protected rights. "It’s my understanding," said Congressman Paul, "that the bill wasn’t printed before the vote [and was] definitely not available to members."

Look again at that first sentence in the Constitution. It doesn’t take a political science Ph.D. to realize that the federal government rightfully possesses only those powers "herein granted" in the Constitution. And there is no grant of power in its pages for the federal government to be involved in education, health, housing, energy, foreign aid and a host of other areas. The gigantic bureaucracies we are saddled with cost enormous sums. Even worse, immense powers are being concentrated in the hands of the central government — a sure path to tyranny.

Looking merely for a laugh, Jay Leno made a vital point. But the Constitution, though routinely circumvented or ignored, still stands. The burning question for Americans remains: Are there enough patriots in this land who understand the Constitution’s timeless value and are willing to get involved in the struggle to assure that its limitations on government are restored to full force and effect? If so, the future looks bright. If not, America’s flickering lamp of liberty will one day blow out.

[Anti Federalist]

Liberty Eagle wrote:


With war clouds gathering just two years ago, the House International Relations Committee met on October 3, 2002 and Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered a motion to declare war on Iraq. He announced his intention to vote against his own measure because he didn’t believe our nation should go to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. But he wanted to remind his colleagues that they alone possessed war-making power. If they wanted to go to war against Iraq, he reasoned, they should vote to declare war as required by the Constitution. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to Dr. Paul’s initiative with as clear a repudiation of the oath of office as has ever been uttered. He said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events [and are] no longer relevant to a modern society. Declaration of war is one of them.... [Your motion is] inappropriate, anachronistic, [and] it isn’t done anymore." And that was that. The committee defeated Dr. Paul’s measure 45-0.

Early in 1999, former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor Robert Reich claimed in an op-ed column that Americans need not worry about the looming impeachment process and its potential to interrupt the work of Congress. He assured all that the business of government would continue because the Federal Reserve now made economic decisions, the IMF dictated foreign policy, and the president decided whether or not to go to war. He concluded, "The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become irrelevant."

LE, I could use both of those.

Got source link?

[LibertyEagle]

Liberty Eagle wrote:



LE, I could use both of those.

Got source link?

I listed the source at the top of post 1, AF. As far as Paul telling them to declare war if they wanted it, he has said that in several interviews and at several rallies. He probably also has it in one of his speeches. That's probably where I'd look first, if I were you.

AF, I did find this about what Reich said...

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, pointed out in USA TODAY, January 7, 1999:

"The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become irrelevant...In case you hadn't noticed, America's domestic policy is being run by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board...Congress is out of the loop. Every so often, some senators or House members politely ask Greenspan to visit and talk about the economy. He obliges by riding up to the Hill and muttering convoluted sentences that no two people interpret in quite the same way. Then he goes back down to the Fed and runs the country."
It was mentioned, here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Paulson-s-Bailout--His-C-by-Bruce-Cain-080927-235.html

Hope that helps. :)

EDIT: Here ya go, AF.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=287

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/713-ron-paul-really-is-qthe-champion-of-the-constitutionq

Ron Paul Really Is "The Champion of the Constitution"
Written by Brian Farmer
Friday, 28 December 2007


In his opening remarks at the GOP debate at Saint Anselm College on June 5, 2007, presidential candidate Ron Paul declared, "I am the champion of the Constitution."

Judging from the results of the Freedom Index, published in the latest issue of The New American magazine (a publication of The John Birch Society), Dr. Paul wasn’t making an idle boast.

As pointed out in the linked article, the Freedom Index "rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements." Congressman Paul scored a perfect 100, based on an examination of ten key votes since the publication of the last Freedom Index in July. (He earned a perfect score in the previous Freedom Index, as well.)

Based on the results of the Freedom Index, Ron Paul’s voting record reflects the political philosophy of the framers of our Constitution. Many politicians (and their supporters) like to put forward the notion that the Constitution was designed for an 18th century agrarian society and is not suited to the complexities of a 21st century urbanized society. But Congressman Paul appears to understand that the principles that the Founding Fathers articulated in the Constitution transcend both time and technology.

The Constitution was not designed for an agrarian society. It was designed by those who lived in an agrarian society for the purpose of securing individual liberty and individual rights. As Dr. Paul puts it, freedom is "the absence of government coercion." By limiting the coercive powers of the federal government, the Constitution freed the creative powers of the American people and allowed them to create the most prosperous society in the history of the human race.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is not self-enforcing. The voters must be vigilant in making sure that government officials respect their oaths to uphold the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If we are not vigilant, then power-hungry politicians will be emboldened to ignore the Constitution and create a federal government that becomes increasingly tyrannical.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbk3hDXxCpA&feature=related

[Cowlesy]

There. Back on topic.

[LibertyEagle]

bump

[cheapseats]

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/us-constitution/1859-use-it-or-lose-it

Not being a devotee of late-night television, I had to be told by an acquaintance about a very insightful remark uttered by comedian Jay Leno. During the customary monologue at the start of his nightly show, Leno pointed to our nation’s leaders and said: "They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.

Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys; it’s worked for over 200 years; and [heck] we’re not using it any more."

Leno’s hyperbole contained an element of truth. While some deference is paid to procedural parts of the venerable document, its most substantive clauses have been consigned to a memory hole. The Constitution is honored in the sense that there are still three branches of government; the president still reports about "the state of the Union"; Congress does "lay and collect taxes"; and "compensation" is provided to those who serve in a government post.

However, the same cannot be said about the very first sentence in the main body of the Constitution. It states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." If all legislative powers reside in Congress, why have Supreme Court decisions attained "law of the land" status? And why is law made through executive orders and presidential decisions? Not only is this abuse tolerated, it’s celebrated. In 1998, Clinton adviser Paul Begala arrogantly described his boss’s repeated use of executive orders as, "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool." And Congress did nothing to stop this abuse.

Occasionally, a direct repudiation of a hugely important constitutional provision surfaces. Worried that a future president might take the nation into war, the Founders carefully assigned the war-declaration power solely to Congress. But Congress did not declare the wars we fought in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq (both in 1991 and 2003). The Constitution wasn’t amended to account for this; it was simply ignored by the vast majority in Congress.

With war clouds gathering just two years ago, the House International Relations Committee met on October 3, 2002 and Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered a motion to declare war on Iraq. He announced his intention to vote against his own measure because he didn’t believe our nation should go to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime. But he wanted to remind his colleagues that they alone possessed war-making power. If they wanted to go to war against Iraq, he reasoned, they should vote to declare war as required by the Constitution. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to Dr. Paul’s initiative with as clear a repudiation of the oath of office as has ever been uttered. He said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events [and are] no longer relevant to a modern society. Declaration of war is one of them.... [Your motion is] inappropriate, anachronistic, [and] it isn’t done anymore." And that was that. The committee defeated Dr. Paul’s measure 45-0.

Early in 1999, former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor Robert Reich claimed in an op-ed column that Americans need not worry about the looming impeachment process and its potential to interrupt the work of Congress. He assured all that the business of government would continue because the Federal Reserve now made economic decisions, the IMF dictated foreign policy, and the president decided whether or not to go to war. He concluded, "The dirty little secret is that both houses of Congress have become irrelevant."

The Constitution is oftentimes trampled even when Congress legislates, since Congress may not pass any law it chooses, but must operate within the powers delegated to it. Some of the unconstitutional legislation is not even read by the lawmakers themselves. On October 24, 2001 in the wake of the 9-11 attack, the House of Representatives approved the USA Patriot Act that many now understand poses a threat to fundamental constitutionally protected rights. "It’s my understanding," said Congressman Paul, "that the bill wasn’t printed before the vote [and was] definitely not available to members."

Look again at that first sentence in the Constitution. It doesn’t take a political science Ph.D. to realize that the federal government rightfully possesses only those powers "herein granted" in the Constitution. And there is no grant of power in its pages for the federal government to be involved in education, health, housing, energy, foreign aid and a host of other areas. The gigantic bureaucracies we are saddled with cost enormous sums. Even worse, immense powers are being concentrated in the hands of the central government — a sure path to tyranny.

Looking merely for a laugh, Jay Leno made a vital point. But the Constitution, though routinely circumvented or ignored, still stands. The burning question for Americans remains: Are there enough patriots in this land who understand the Constitution’s timeless value and are willing to get involved in the struggle to assure that its limitations on government are restored to full force and effect? If so, the future looks bright. If not, America’s flickering lamp of liberty will one day blow out.

In my estimation, Jay Leno's remark is NOT hyperbolic. On the contrary, I would say that it is SPOT ON.

I would ALSO remind my countrymen of this wise counsel:



"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: when these things can be said, then may that country boast its constitution and its government."

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Part II, 1792


And another thing -- like Columbo.

I'm not appreciating all this "personal accountability" that everyone is suddenly SELLING, quite pointedly to divert attention from absolutely whopping lapses in Ethics & Judgment.

IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHAT STOCKS YOUR BROKER HAS GOT YOU IN. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT YOUR RETIREMENT FUNDS ARE WISELY INVESTED. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO OVERSEE YOUR BANK'S LIQUIDITY. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OVERSTEP ITS CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS.

When shall beleaguered Americans exercise all that freedom and responsibility, when they are neither working nor commuting nor being slaves to the homes they have been persuaded to overbuy?

PEOPLE ARE PAID TO DO THIS SHIT RIGHT. THE REASON THAT FEES ARE ATTACHED TO ALL THESE SERVICES -- READ THAT, BROKERS AND BANKERS AND BUREAUCRATS GET THEIRS OFF THE TOP -- IS BECAUSE IT'S SOMEONE'S FUCKING JOB TO DO THESE JOBS COMPETENTLY AND PRUDENTLY, WHILE WE DO OTHER JOBS, SO WE CAN PAY FOR THINGS LIKE BROKERS, BANKERS AND BUREAUCRATS SO THAT, WHEN WE'RE NOT WORKING, WE'RE ABLE TO ENJOY LIFE.

If the People have to perform their own oversight -- if life is one big Let The Buyer Beware -- then FIRE THE ENTIRE STATE AND FEDERAL WORKFORCES. That would constitute a meaningful whack at our unsustainable deficit. No guarantees of fiduciary responsibility, no FDIC, nuthin' . . . every man for himself, catch as catch can.

We are BROADCASTING the profitability of crime -- if we will not rout out some Bad Guys and destroy them, we will get more of the same. That's how that works. After a time, sadly, the Good Guys will become Bad Guys -- history DOES repeat itself -- but that is the next generation's problem. We will do them a favor, I think, by not trying to determine their solutions for them. Besides, our plate is full -- we have our OWN dragons to slay. For the ol' Record, that'd be a Metaphor.

[LibertyEagle]

Huh? On one hand you seem to want more regulation to save people from their own decisions. On the other hand, you want to fire all the state and federal employees. Which is it?

By the way, personal responsibility is not a new concept at all. It's been around since the dawn of time. With liberty, comes responsibility. Ron Paul spoke of it often. For example, if you want to be free from having your money stolen for social security, you in turn have to be responsible for your own retirement and plan accordingly. You can't expect the government or your neighbor to come save you because you didn't do so.

And yes, it has ALWAYS been our responsibility to stay educated and hold our public servants accountable. We were told numerous times, that this would be the only way our Republic would last. Unfortunately, we did not. Think about it --- who else could possible care about their liberty, as much as the people themselves? Our Founders gave us the framework and the tools. Some, we foolishly tossed aside and now they're gone. In other cases, we sat on our butts, stuffing our faces, watching the latest TV show or football game, while a bunch of traitors took over our country. It didn't happen overnight. It's been going on for decades. So, don't expect that we're going to be able to turn it around overnight. They have always banked on us falling asleep until crises were created and us running for the solution that they proposed to us. Which in reality, would make the situation much worse in the long-term. We need to stop falling for it.

Rugged individualism, individual liberty and yes, personal responsibility, free enterprise and hard work is what once made this country great. It's way past time that we grew some again and stopped looking to nanny to save us (from the problems they created in the first place).

[cheapseats]

Huh? On one hand you seem to want more regulation to save people from their own decisions.

Point to ONE instance wherein I argue for MORE regulation.



On the other hand, you want to fire all the state and federal employees. Which is it?

Does it SOUND to you like I am arguing FOR the firing of all Government employees? Or does it SOUND like I am pointing out the imbecilic redundancy of our being obliged to do the same work, in order to protect ourselves, that we are already paying other people to do.

Mindlessly, Libertarians argue for the freedom to rip off and be ripped off.



By the way, personal responsibility is not a new concept at all. It's been around since the dawn of time. With liberty, comes responsibility. Ron Paul spoke of it often. For example, if you want to be free from having your money stolen for social security, you in turn have to be responsible for your own retirement and plan accordingly. You can't expect the government or your neighbor to come save you because you didn't do so.

WAY ahead of you.

And have a care the height of the pedestal onto which you place Ron Paul. He's been in Congress for 30 years -- MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY -- either his positions or the way he articulates them, or both, do not carry the day. Obviously.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not a Libertarian, bud.


Does it SOUND to you like I am arguing FOR the firing of all Government employees? Or does it SOUND like I am pointing out the imbecilic redundancy of our being obliged to do the same work, in order to protect ourselves, that we are already paying other people to do.

Quite frankly, what you said didn't make a whole lot of sense. That's why I asked.


And have a care the height of the pedestal onto which you place Ron Paul. He's been in Congress for 30 years -- MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY -- either his positions or the way he articulates them, or both, do not carry the day. Obviously.
Care to expand this thought and clarify?