Skip to comments.Recovery of the U.S. Constitution is Essential for America's Recovery of Freedom
Posted on 12/04/2015 7:28:33 AM PST by Jim 0216
To recover their political freedom from an increasingly despotic and totalitarian federal government, the American People MUST recover their only legal bulwark of freedom against federal tyranny: the U.S. Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. The people must once again establish the Rule of Law, the key to political freedom, by reinstating the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and the Ruler over the federal government.
To do this, the average American must familiarize himself with the Constitution and understand how it mainly limits the federal government. Below is a rough outline of the possible order of things in approaching the Constitution in a way the average American could understand.
1) Getting a good grasp of the PRESUMPTIONS of the Constitution helped by reading the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Declaration of Independence and certain selected Federalist Papers. The major presumptions are that
a) rights and powers are inherent in individuals and are given by God - among them are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and are the birth right of every individual and are NOT given by government,
b) the Constitution does NOT grant rights and powers to individuals but the Constitution protects those rights which are God-given
c) the powers of the federal government are CREATED and DELEGATED by individuals through the states via the Constitution by which the feds themselves are both created and LIMITED.
d) if it is not a specific, enumerated power, it is not a power of the federal government whereas the opposite is true with the states and individuals. The states and the people are presumed SOVEREIGN outside of Constitutional mandates and limitations.
2) Understanding the basic STRUCTURAL doctrines in the Constitution by reading resources with solid Constitutional-based reasoning like Robert Bork's works. The Constitution creates the federal government and is its ONLY source of legitimate power and authority. The major structure of the feds is the three branches and the separation of powers between the branches with its checks & balances of power among the branches.
Article I creates the legislative branch, Article II creates the executive branch, Article III the judicial branch, Article IV puts certain limitations on the states, Article V outlines how to amend the Constitution, and Article VI declares the Constitution and ONLY those U.S. laws PURSUANT to the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
3) Once you've got a hold of that, you can READ THE TEXT of the Constitution with a basic understanding.
4) Post-1900 SCOTUS decisions are generally problematic although the pre-1900 decisions are better and more helpful in accurately interpreting constitutional phrases. There are very few good resources that critically analyze SCOTUS decisions based on sound constitutional understanding, and Bork's books are one of those rare resources.
There is a strong argument that society has granted SCOTUS powers much greater power than what the ratifiers contemplated. Nowhere does the Constitution give SCOTUS solitary power to create uncontroverted universal law from the bench. SCOTUS is the branch that applies the Constitution to INDIVIDUAL CASES and CONTROVERSIES (Art III, Sec 2). Thus SCOTUS decisions, if soundly based on the Constitution, are valid but limited to precedent for like cases, thus creating a kind of constitutional common law. A SCOTUS decision that is deemed unconstitutional should be ignored and nullified by the states and the other federal branches, but not without sound Constitution-based explanation and reasons for such nullification.
5) Bork's writings also help in understanding modern PERVERTED PRESUMPTIONS that depart from the Constitutional as written and originally understood and intended. Such perversions are generally those Congressional acts and SCOTUS decisions over the last 100 years or so that have given the feds sweeping, authoritative, and actually totalitarian powers with little to no constitutional reasoning or basis for doing so. The big three perversions are
a) "The Incorporation Doctrine" - judicial misapplication of the 14th Amendment giving the feds sweeping powers not contemplated by the ratifiers of the amendment.
b) The [Interstate] "Commerce Clause" (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3) astonishingly been expanded by Congress and ratified by SCOTUS to give the feds almost unlimited power over intrastate and local economic activities again, not contemplated by the ratifiers of the Constitution.
c) The "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18), originally intended to allow executive enforcement and regulation pursuant to legislation within the scope of the Constitution, the N&P Clause has been expanded beyond constitutional grounds and limits to such an extent that a quasi-fourth branch of government has been created: the Administrative State with behemoth unconstitutional bureaucracies.
This is an action plan to begin the recovery of political freedom in America. The first step is the American People becoming familiar with and owning THEIR Constitution as written and originally understood and intended as outline above, which is the key to THEIR political freedom. The next step is the citizenry moving intelligently and boldly to choose, elect, and hold accountable representatives at the state level to enforce constitutional state sovereignty and nullify unconstitutional federal acts, which by definition are acts of tyranny, and at the federal level to cut government to its constitutional size. Armed with this knowledge and resulting boldness, the American People could begin to recover their freedoms and their Constitution that protects them.
This assumes our battle is one of ideas. This is a battle of opposing wills.
To do this, the average American must familiarize himself with the Constitution and understand how it mainly limits the federal government.
To do this we must first teach people how to READ!
4 out of 5 High School Graduates can not read or write past a 3rd grade level.
America THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE!
BLESSED! LET US PRAISE GOD FOR America!
PAY ATTENTION AND VOTE WISELY.
You must win the debate in the forum of ideas to gain the moral high ground to win the battle of wills.
“4 out of 5 High School Graduates can not read or write past a 3rd grade level” !!!!
if TRUE ... HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED?
“There ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE”.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
The debate needs to be within conservatism on what to do. Then we need to do it. The left needs to be out of the equation. You don’t negotiate or debate with people who want to quiet, disarm, marginalize, and kill you. It makes no sense to try to convince the left, and the American people don’t need to be convinced. Obama has shown that you needn’t win the people, you do your thing and the people accept it or don’t. We shouldn’t not let our liberty depend on the will of the masses or the will of people who are fundamentally opposed to liberty.
OUTSTANDING post, Jim 0216. Thanks.
Recovery is nearly impossible when the president sweeps aside the entire document calling it, “a charter of negative liberties” and there is ZERO pushback from “representatives” and the rest of the supposed “checks and balances” including states and individuals. Current events, the government, the propagandists, the indoctrinators are heavily stacked against wee small government citizens. The deceivers remain free, as we become enslaved by their words and their deeds.
OUTSTANDING post, Jim 0216. Thanks.
HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED?
It started with LBJ’s War on the Family in 1964
It's one thing to read, and quite another to actually comprehend what they have read.
In these times of PC and fluid word meanings, a document that is specific, becomes unintelligible because of those fluid word meanings. Add to that practically zero instruction in basic civics, or worse a severely distorted version. Then stir in a corrupted edit of history, you then are presented with a general population who can barely read, and cannot understand what they have read, and have no previous landmarks with which to evaluate the context is a specific document like the constitution.
The constitution was written by men who were intelligent, well educated, and clearly understood history. The last 20+ years ...ever since the emergence of the Clinton Machine has seen all of that go straight into the trash. We are now a barely literate, barely numerate, population who cannot function beyond the primal urges.
Of course this is not about getting Leftist permission for anything, but YOU must be convinced of the moral and legal superiority of you argument AND must be prepared to answer the Left when challenged.
And your moral and legal high ground is easy when you base your argument against the feds on the Rule of Law of Constitution, an objective standard as written and originally understood and intended, and , which validates or invalidates federal action, REGARDLESS of PERSONAL moral views.
I agree completely.
Does anyone have the stats of reading level of college graduates?
Yes. This proves the debate within conservatism needs to happen quickly. There are too many people who think we can win an election or two and put things back right. We have drifted well too far for that.
It's clear from the Federalist Papers what was meant by keeping and bearing arms.
In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
quote:James Madison adds to this in Federalist #46:
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
Note that Madison is referring to Article I Section 8 "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
It is clear that the "militia" was meant to be the civilian population-at-large, armed with their own weapons, and trusted to bear them in their own common defense.
Sorry, but until stare decisis is rejected as a legal doctrine, this is impossible.
STEP BY STEP AND INCREMENTALLY.
LET US TURN FROM ALLOWING THIS MARCH TOWARD DESTRUCTION.
I hadn’t heard that one about Obama calling the Constitution, which by the way he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend, “a charter of negative liberties.”
Yes, it is a charter of negative liberties AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The feds have NO liberties outside its Constitutional limitations. Obama and the Lefties hate individuals who the very Son of God died for, and instead love government coercion and force over individuals. They are a very sad lot.
Wonder what excuse he uses to weasel his way out of blatantly violating his oath of office?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.