Skip to comments.Pat Elliot(Texas CD10 Candidate) Speech on Constitution
Posted on 03/01/2004 8:28:23 PM PST by DrewsDad
SPEECH PREPARATION FOR REPUBLICAN PARTY
By Pat Elliott President, Washington County, Texas, Republican Club, 2001
The object of these writings is to inform speakers on a number of topics that may come up in the context of their speech to various audiences. This information will supplement your own ideas and support you in giving an effective and persuasive speech for our politically conservative Republican Party! First, we are trying to educate people to vote for conservative Republican candidates; secondly, we want people to join the Republican Party and become active in the political process. Our ultimate goal is to persuade 10% of independent & Democrat voters to vote Republican, and, if we can do that, we will win elections for our party and candidates. It is said that Texas Democrats are Republicans with a thin coat of paint. Our job is to slap on some informative paint remover and apply the Republican brand of paint, which is truth applied in an effective manner. It is also to keep our party from leaving us as the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan when he changed from a democrat to a republican.
Take your speech to the audience with energy, pathos, enthusiasm, a smile, and, to reiterate, the truth! Make sure your audience fully understands what you are trying to convey without any loose ends, and if you tell your audience, or an individual, you will do something for them, please make sure you follow through. Dont promise anything you cannot do, and keep your talk within a proper time frame.
I have gone to great pains to use direct quotes from many individuals so you may recite these with emphasis, and explain to your audience the meaning of what is stated. There are references I wish to acknowledge which are not in the text of various subjects because I would be footnoting too much. Some of the references used to validate this information include Congressional records, historical records & letters, and memoirs of those stated, mostly taken from a variety of sources; ORIGINAL INTENT by David Barton, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CONSTITUTION by John Eidsmoe, THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT by Clarence B. Carson, WEBSTERS DICTIONARY, LIMBAUGH LETTER & PROGRAM, Social Security Office, THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION SPORTSMAN, The IRS, Gary Benoit and my own personal knowledge. Should anyone desire a source from a direct quote, I can provide that, more than likely with a date and page number. Some quotes you may see more than once because the subject may overlap with another and the quote and/or who said it may be significant. The term republican government is used several times and is simply referencing the government of a republic. All quotations are quoted with the punctuation used at the time of the quote.
Also, you will see many references to God, the Divine, Divinity and other references toward a Supreme Being. This is the way it was in colonial America, early USA and for many, many decades thereafter. The founders, and for a long time after, were very, very religious, all but just a few.
THE CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS
The United States came into being on July 4, 1776, and was governed briefly by The Articles of Association, but mostly by The Articles of Confederation. In 1787, a Constitutional Convention was called in Philadelphia to write a new constitution, and every state was represented, except Rhode Island, because they were in a crisis over inflation and paper money. 39 of 56 delegates signed the document and several did not because of their ardent opposition to a potential centralization of federal power and usurpation of states sovereignty on a number of issues. It went to the states for discussion and approval and was finally ratified April 6, 1789, the same day George Washington was selected President. George Mason, who is called the Father of the Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph and others refused to sign the new constitution because it didnt have a bill of rights outlining specific rights and limiting government power in respect to all rights. Along with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, these men were called anti-federalists and pushed hard for a bill of rights. Originally, twelve amendments were proposed, but ten passed as Mason and others got their way on June 15, 1790. The BILL OF RIGHTS was adopted as part of the new Constitution and ratified December 15, 1791.
The CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS are what guarantee our rights as Americans and limit the powers and jurisdiction of government, yet over the past century, and especially the past 70 years, original meanings have been twisted and distorted allowing the federal government to become a power-hungry monster! The Founders had a great deal of wisdom, and it has been said, Divine direction, so their original intent must be analyzed to find what they really meant. For instance, James Wilson stated, The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it! Wilson was one of only six men who signed both the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and CONSTITUTION, was the 2nd most active member of the Constitutional Convention speaking 168 times, a lawyer and law professor, nominated by George Washington as an original Supreme Court Justice, and in 1792, co-authored Americas first legal commentaries on the CONSTITUTION. Joseph Story stated, The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments (documents) is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and intentions of the parties! Story was the son of one of the Boston Tea Party Indians, founder of Harvard Law School, called the Father of American Jurisprudence along with Chancellor James Kent, nominated to the Supreme Court by President James Madison and called the foremost of American legal writers.
To discover the Founders original intent, one must go back to the debates and discussions of the Constitutional Convention, state conventions, historical statements and letters and any in context statements they may have made. The one thing that can be said without any doubt or reservation is that they all wanted restrictions on the power and authority of the federal government, although some favored a strong federal government, and separation of powers (legislative, executive & judicial). In his first term as president, Thomas Jefferson observed that our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. Usurpation and liberalization of our Constitution has been done in the areas of the general welfare clause, interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause as providing vast and unspecified powers without regard for the intent of the Founders. Some of the things done without authority in the CONSTITUTION include Social Security, food stamps, foreign aid, subsidies & public housing and a full bureaucracy of regulations over business and industry.
Those who usurp this power will say our Constitution was written in the horse and buggy days, but fundamental principles and human nature do not change. It was the prime consideration of principles and human nature that the U.S. CONSTITUTION was created for the protection of our God given rights, for if government gives us rights, the government can take them away. Furthermore, these powers assumed by usurpers dont make sense as specific powers are listed that congress can exercise to provide for the general welfare of the country. James Madison asked in THE FEDERALIST, #41, 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 . In a letter dated January 21, 1792, Madison further stated, If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
Our Constitution must not be a flexible instrument or a living document or things done in the spirit of the Constitution. Most law schools teach case studies instead of where the root of our laws is found: the CONSTITUTION. Constitutional study is a must if we are to keep our laws intact, and the CONSTITUTION must be inelastic and exercised as defined! If it is elastic, we may lose some very important freedoms by modification. Alexander Hamilton explained in THE FEDERALIST #78, No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. Another way to fancifully look at this subject is to look at a number of babies---yes, babies! They all look somewhat alike and some are hard to tell apart, desiring much of the same things and that is simply to be comfortable. As they grow older, they change physically and mentally, some being kindly & good, others average and still others being greedy or tyrannical such as Hitler or Stalin. If our Constitution is allowed to grow, live or be flexible, then what will we have as it changes. Look at your own baby picture and compare it to what this baby looks like now. The Constitution is not dead because it protects our rights and limits government power and there is a lawful process, through congress and the states, for changing its powers. Do we want to loose these functions of the document through a living flexible document? NO! The Founding Fathers had tremendous wisdom! I pray our present leaders have a fraction of their wisdom!
As we all know, the federal government grows & grows & grows and must be stopped. An educated electorate and a Congress with backbone can reverse this and it is also the intent of our effort to make government smaller and elect people with integrity!
SEPARATION OF POWERS
CHECKS AND BALANCES
The separation of powers and checks & balances concepts came about because the lessons of history taught our Founding Fathers that there is a tendency of human nature to abuse power and the tyranny that usually happened when government power was concentrated in one branch was a universal occurrence over time.
To get to this concept, one must consider the influence of Charles Louis Secondat Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu (Whew, Im out of breath) 1689-1755, a French attorney and author, who wrote his SPIRIT OF LAWS in 1748. He was simply called Montesquieu, for short. He flatly stated, When the legislative and executive are in the same person there can be no liberty. And speaking of the judicial he said, Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was an English judge and law professor who wrote the four-volume COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, had a tremendous influence on the founders about from where laws are derived. He said that the Laws of Nature comes from the will of mans Maker and that the Laws of Natures God are found only in Holy Scripture. His volumes were used well into the 1800s, in the U.S., as the basis of law. Barton describes in ORIGINAL INTENT, It was a fundamental precept under the natural law philosophy explained by Blackstone and embraced by the majority of the founders that civil laws could not contradict the laws of God revealed either through nature or the BIBLE. The founders were also influenced by other authors, the Roman Stoic idea of a law above a law, and greatly by the BIBLE.
So if Montesquieus separations and balances are united with Blackstones source of irrefutable, unchangeable and just laws, then there is a basis for a very sound form of government. Our Founding Fathers embraced this and expanded these things with ideas of their own into the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Although Charles Cotesworth Pickney had a great influence on the U.S. Constitution, James Madison is recognized as the primary author of this document. First, he stated of government, A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. Secondly, Madison said that the powers of government should come from the people through the social covenant, the Constitution; that these powers are derivative and limited and that government has no authority and power delegated to it other than by the Constitution. Government may not act beyond these derivative and limited powers even if a majority wants to, because the majority may abuse the rights of the minority. Thirdly, he stated that the law of nature and natures God must be respected by the Constitution and the government as the source of just law. Fourth and fifth, Madison supported the separation of powers to minimize abuse and favored the nexus imperii spoken of by John Witherspoon, those checks and balances by which the various branches of government are interdependent on one another. For example, Congress passes legislation, the executive can veto it, but that can be overridden by two-thirds vote of the legislative. The judicial can declare acts constitutional, or not, and the executive appoints court members approved by the legislative. Ambitions should be checked, out of others self-interest and the legislative should check the attempt of excessive power by the executive. The legislative cannot reduce the salary of the executive, thus preventing economic extortion and the executive may pardon should the judicial resort to excess. If the legislative exceeds its power, the judicial can declare it unconstitutional, and so on. These are but a few of the checks and balances our government has within the documents.
Consider the intent of the Founders, and others, on the powers of each branch and their separation. Article I of the Constitution states the responsibilities of the legislative in 109 lines. Article II addresses the executive in 47 lines and Article III states the responsibilities of the judicial in 17 lines. The legislative must be the strongest of the three, as it was intended. Congress is elected by majority vote of the electorate and senators were elected by state legislators until the 17th. Amendment, thus taking away some dependence of senators to the states. Madison explained in THE FEDERALIST #62, No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people (House of Representatives), and then of a majority of the states (Senate). The President is elected by the Electoral College, which usually has electors casting their votes, as popular vote goes, at respective state capitols.
The Founders wanted to stay away from democracies as much as possible because it echoed majority rule and trampled on minority rights and ignored the rule of law. From a federal view, the only majority vote came from the direct election of congressional representatives. With the 17th. Amendment and direct election of senators, we have taken a step toward democracy and moved away from the states toward the federal government, thus removing a balance of power that tips the scale toward Washington and away from the states. Thomas Jefferson forewarned this loss of control and centralization of power as he stated, Taking from the states the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority (federal) .would break up the foundation of the union .I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market.
Over a period of time, the balance of power has shifted away from the legislative to the executive and the judicial. There is clear and irrefutable proof found in the FEDERALIST PAPERS that is a very reliable reflection of the intent of the Founders. One of its authors, James Madison, stated, The Federalist may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution as understood by the body which prepared and the authority which accepted it. So, in establishing the relative power and authority intended for each branch, Alexander Hamilton said, in FEDERALIST #51, In republican government the legislative authority, necessarily, predominates. FEDERALIST #78 stated, The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power The general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter. For I agree that there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Hamilton further stated in #78, The judiciary on the contrary has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. Montesquieu, in discussing the powers of the three branches, declared, Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is in some measure, next to nothing.
In the last seventy years, the judiciary has usurped power and authority from mainly the legislative, and the President from the legislative, through his executive order authority. It was not intended that the laws be treated in the spirit of the Constitution just as George Washington warned against the spirit of a political party. Hamilton, in FEDERALIST #81 warned, There is not a syllable in the plan (Constitution) which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution. James Madison further declared, Refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character .makes the judiciary department paramount in fact to the legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper. James Kent said that the judiciary could compare a law only to the true meaning of the Constitution. In a letter to William Jarvis, in 1820, Thomas Jefferson stated, You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps .And their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. We saw this passion for party, power and privilege of their corps recently demonstrated by the Florida Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson prophetically tells of what is happening: It has long, however been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its _expression that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of our federal judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped. Finally, Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural address declared, I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, the instant they are made the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
In my humble opinion, the Supreme Court needs to be put back in its proper perspective, as well as the President, whose job, in the original sense, was to carry out what congress directed. We can do that by educating the electorate and voting in congressional representatives who have the fortitude to do something about these usurpations.
And lastly, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism .In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man; but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
DEMOCRACIES V. REPUBLICS
A democracy, in simple terms, is majority rule! A republic is government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to the law.
Majority rule really sounds great---unless you are in the minority. Then what!?
The key to a republic is governing according to the law. The law, much like the sea, should treat everyone the same, even if a person is a minority of one.
Democracy is often spoken of as self-government; but in reality, it is not! When people speak of democracy as self-government, they are not speaking about each person governing himself; they are speaking of a process in which a majority of the voters, or a majority of members of a legislature, make decisions which have the force of law for everyone, including those who are opposed to what is enacted. What if this minority opposition has a just cause and the majority is trying to take advantage of the minority? The most usual, and most easily understood, objection to democracy as a form of government is that it enables the majority to ride roughshod over the rights of the minority to persecute them, to censor their activities, even to kill them. But you say, how can that happen? A classical, but fictional, account of the possibilities of this is a movie made in 1943, called THE OXBOW INCIDENT! It featured Henry Fonda, Harry Morgan, Dana Andrews and Anthony Quinn. The story was about a group of men who bought a herd of cattle from a man who was subsequently murdered. The posse gathered to go after them, and as they left, a man made a statement to the leader that went something like, just remember, well do what the majority says. Well they did! They caught em, voted and hung em high; and immediately after the dastardly deed, the sheriff came upon the scene and announced he had captured the real perpetrators. But alas, the crime was committed, and all in the name of majority rule.
Now, if this were properly done and within the confines of a republic, these men would be given a fair trial by rule of law, not a kangaroo court.
A second, and even more telling, criticism of democracy is that a majority of voters will often vote for policies which turn out to be ruinous to themselves, though they do not see this at the time.
Gouverneur Morris, signer of the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION and U.S. CONSTITUTION, most active member of the Constitutional Convention speaking 173 times, titled the penman of the Constitution, minister to France, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and author of many legal and political works stated, The engine by which a giddy population can be most easily wrought on to do mischief, is their hatred of the rich. Give the votes to the people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich.---Or else vote themselves the possessions of those more prosperous. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman statesman and orator, decried the descent of the Roman Republic into democracy, a form of government, he warned, that would be dominated by a demagogue, who curries favor with the people by giving them other mens property. Many are easily exploited by demagogues and led into radical causes. Legislators, responding to the voters who elected them, may vote billions of dollars for various schemes of welfare, and, even though only a small part of the money reaches the poor for whom it was intended, the legislators continue to vote for these measures. If they dont, they are branded as cold and inhuman and dont get re-elected. Oh, but I suppose its OK for government to take money from someone and give wholesale to another? It has been referred to as legal plunder and redistribution of wealth.
But the voters rebel at the resulting high taxes and the government may resort to increasing the quantity of printing press money. This is one of the greatest causes of inflation, an excess of money in circulation. The consumer dollars will no longer buy what they did before and voters dont see the casual connection between the measures they (the majority) voted for and their resultant poverty. When people say, Its government money; they should be thinking, its my money! George Washington stated in his farewell address, To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue, that to have revenue there must be taxes; In the 1960s through the 1980s, the Democratic Congress voted in welfare and so-called entitlements that took almost half the budget. Moreover, the majority of Americans consider these things as their right! Essentially, the Democrat controlled congress was buying votes with our tax dollars. The high tax brackets, at that time, reaped a very large percentage from the middle to high income brackets, high taxes on inheritance and the like, and one must be destitute to get nursing home benefits paid for over many years, even be compelled to sell assets to qualify. The Democrat majority would then vote to give money, entitlements, welfare and more to the masses who then became obligated to them, thus prostituting themselves. President Reagan stopped some of this nonsense but the job is unfinished! The resulting level of taxation, as well as national indebtedness, was causing our republic to hemorrhage to death in the name of democracy. Strangely enough, in reading the CONSTITUTION, I do not remember one hint of anything authorizing this severe taxation or expenditure, except of course the 16th. Amendment, enacted in 1913.
Our Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, had much to say of democracy: Benjamin Rush, member of Continental Congress, signer of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, Treasurer of the U.S. Mint, co-author of the Pennsylvania Constitution, called the father of American medicine and many other distinguishing titles stated, A simple democracy is one of the greatest evils. John Adams said, Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Quincy Adams further stated, The experiences of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. James Madison, in FEDERALIST #10 wrote, 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. Noah Webster, of dictionary fame, a Massachusetts legislator, lawyer, a Revolutionary War soldier, exclaimed, In democracy there are commonly tumults and disorders Therefore, a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. And my last indictment on democracy is by Fisher Ames, member of Massachusetts House of Representatives and the orator at the death of George Washington, declared, A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness (excessive license) which the ambitions call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty. We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers was a republic, not a democracy. The word democracy is not mentioned, even once, in our constitution, or in the constitutions of any of the fifty states; in fact, Article IV, Section 4 of the CONSTITUTION, states, The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government
And speaking of our republic, it was founded on principles that do not change as identified by Montesquieu, who authored essays on law, government, the military, taxation, economics, religion, etc. His theory on separation of powers into three distinct branches and checks and balances greatly influenced the Founders in forming our republic. Benjamin Rush said, Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community. The principles which did not change and that which is certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community were religious in nature, more specifically, the principles of Biblical natural law. Sir William Blackstone, lawyer, law lecturer and member of parliament who authored his four-volume COMMENTARIES ON LAWS OF ENGLAND, also had a great influence on our Founding Fathers, stated, To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine .If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law . Alexander Hamilton explained, The law dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. Finally, James Wilson, a signer of the CONSTITUTION and U.S. Supreme Court Justice stated of Divine & human law, All (laws), however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human .But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God .Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.
As previously stated, Divine laws do not change unless some liberal revisionist demagogue twists the meaning. Revisionism is an evolutionary movement rather than a revolutionary spirit, and it attempts to change historical, and other meanings, to fit its needs; and, they are set on laws derived from man and not a Devine source. A demagogue is a person who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims & promises in order to gain power. THE COMMON SCHOOL ALMANAC, 1839, stated, A demagogue would like a people half-educated; enough to read what he says, but not enough to know whether it is true or not. Some examples of contemporary political demagogues are Gore, Daschle, Gephardt, Jackson-Lee, Schumer, Waters, Conyers, Kennedy, Sharpton and the greatest three of all, two Clintons & a Jackson!!!
A republic requires very high maintenance and human care. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a democracy, anarchy, oligarchy or a dictatorship. Noah Webster stated clearly his sentiment, Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the NEW TESTAMENT, or the Christian Religion. The term republican refers to a republic. An ignorant electorate can be swayed by demagogues, greed and selfishness. The United States was founded on religious principles that work on the conscience to do the proper and moral thing. We have seen this go by the wayside in recent decades and accelerated in the Clinton/Gore era and the post election days. This must be stopped, and morality, ethics & character returned to our republic.
One final quote of notoriety was in a letter from Benjamin Rush to John Adams on January 22, 1789. He described democracy as rule by majority feeling; a republic is rule by law, and described democracy as mobocracy.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
When the First Amendment is mentioned, most people will think, or say, separation of church and state or freedom of religion. Others will say freedom of speech and still others will say freedom of the press. Well, you may think, its all of these things and more, or is it? With emphasis, it has responsibilities and certain restrictions. So lets examine it, with original intent, and what it has become.
The First Amendment has six parts:
1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
2) Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 3) Or abridging the freedom of speech, 4) Or of the press; 5) Or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, 6) And to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
First, let us examine part one. The key words are an establishment. What is an establishment? Websters Dictionary states that an establishment is a public or private institution, an established order of society, a group of social, economic and political leaders who form a ruling class and a controlling group. Ironically, just above establishment is the definition of established church (1660). It is defined as a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation and supported by civil authority. Please keep this definition and date in mind. Just like an eating establishment, it is a formally organized effort of whatever the intended course may be. In the case of The First Amendment, formally organized religions, or sects, as they were honorably referred to then, were Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers and so on. From the 1600s through about the late 1780s, there was a system of state-ordered tithes that taxed citizens and gave to whatever sect was established in that state, and attendance was mandatory in some places! As an example, Virginia taxed for Anglicans (Church of England), although other sects greatly outnumbered them. It appears the Anglicans had a very good lobby at the state house! The famed Virginia Bill of Religious Liberty, or sometimes called the Virginia Statute, stopped this practice of state-ordered religious taxation. This effort was championed by James Madison, called the Father of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, known as the primary author of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, and both future presidents.
There were many other colonies, and after independence, states, which ceased religious taxation before Virginia ended the practice in its state. We dont have religious taxation today supporting an establishment of religion; however, the meaning of the first part of the First Amendment has been twisted and maligned. Let us briefly examine this. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, 1833, states very clearly: The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy (a denominational council) the exclusive patronage of the national government. Please note the words any national ecclesiastical establishment as Justice Story has detailed. To make this even more dramatic and crystal clear, James Madisons proposed wordings for the First Amendment stated, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. I believe national religion has the same meaning as an establishment of religion, and leaves this quite clear. Also consider the established church definition with what Justice Story stated and put all three together. Obviously, Madisons verbiage of the First Amendment was not adopted probably because it was not broad enough.
The above is so clear and easily understood that it is beyond me why we must continue this explanation, but it must be further explained because of what enlightened liberal revisionists have done to the First Amendment, and the rest of the CONSTITUTION. You have heard, or you will hear, about the wall of separation between church and state as these revisionists will grab on to anything they can to squash religion. The Thomas Jefferson statement about building a wall of separation between church and state, was made in a letter in 1802, thirteen years after the Constitutional Convention, and the importance has been greatly overrated. I say this, to begin the discussion on Jeffersons statement, because the term separation of church and state or wall of separation between church and state does not appear, not even once, anywhere, in the CONSTITUTION or BILL OF RIGHTS, nor can even an implication be found!!! During the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson was in France serving as U.S. Minister and did not hold any other office whatsoever. In fact, the Reverend Dr. Joseph Priestly sent him a copy of a letter he was preparing to publish on Jefferson, crediting him with being a major influence in framing the CONSTITUTION. Jefferson replied on June 19, 1802, and asked Dr. Priestly to correct the error: One passage in the paper you enclosed me must be corrected. It is the following, And all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it (Constitution). I was in Europe when the CONSTITUTION was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. He further stated, On receiving it, I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison urging the want of provision (Bill of Rights) for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for standing army, and an express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union (10th. Amendment) .This is all the hand I had in what related to the CONSTITUTION. As evidenced by this, Thomas Jefferson had character, integrity and honesty. Incidentally, at the Constitutional Convention, James Madison was against a bill of rights, and this will be discussed in the text of the 9th. & 10th. Amendments.
In 1886, George Bancroft, an eminent nineteenth century historian, declared that
Roger Sherman, George Washington, Charles Cotesworth Pickney, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were master builders of the CONSTITUTION. One historical account referred to Pickney as the father of the CONSTITUTION as 40 of Madisons 71 proposals failed, and James Monroe stated that without the leadership of George Washington, the convention would have adjourned unsuccessfully. Madison even stated that, It ought to be regarded as a work of many heads and many hands.
The statement about a wall between church & state, made by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, was in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, and it appears he intentionally referred to the words of an earlier Baptists leader, Roger Williams (1603-1684): When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if he will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world. According to Williams himself, the wall of separation was to protect the garden of the church from the wilderness of the world. Jeffersons statement was, I contemplate with solemn reference that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature make no law respecting an act of religion (sect or establishment), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. And there is a second half of Jeffersons sentence that never gets quoted by the liberals and the media, and it reads, The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure Christian principles will always stay in government. Our present Supreme Court Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, described the separation of church and state statement as a misleading metaphor! From THOMAS JEFFERSONS WRITINGS, Monticello Edition, in 1808, he wrote to a clergyman and stated, I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by The Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline and exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States (10th. Amendment). Clearly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated the general government. Religious institutions and establishment are synonyms and the wall statement has been turned on its head! Chief Justice Rehnquist further states, There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the wall of separation that was constitutionalized in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, But the greatest injury of the wall notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. No amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the error true. The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based on bad history It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned Our perception has been clouded not by The Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.
In reading these quotations, I think it would be safe to say the Founding Fathers wanted government out of religion; but what about religion in government? Thats not to say that churches should be involved in lawmaking or running the country as an establishment of a particular religion. It is to say that religion should be possibly promoted for the general welfare and morality of the country instead of ruling that we cannot have prayer at the appropriate time and place. Well, lets see what has been said over the past two plus centuries, beginning with another thought by Chief Justice Rehnquist. He was not a proponent of removing prayer from public places and schools and applauded George Washingtons proclamation and a Congressional Resolution on October 3, 1789, to have a day of thanksgiving and prayer, and as Washington said at the end of his proclamation, ...to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue! John Jay, who was one of three authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS, a President of Congress, New York Supreme Court Justice, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (appointed by President Washington), Governor of New York and President of The American Bible Society stated, It is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion. Just why would Chief Justice Jay say governments should encourage religion? Very simply said, without religion, any society, people and leaders more than likely will be absent of morality, integrity and character as we have witnessed in the last eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration! As morality declines, the abuse of rights increases, more government is necessary, and as domestic animals need herdsmen, an immoral citizenry needs a police state! If we ever abandon our morality and adopt instead the law of the jungle, we will lose our freedom; therefore, we must not only be moral but informed. If we are not informed, we will tend to vote for the politician who promises the most and we will have bigger government, and finally, total government. Keeping this in mind, think about what penman and signer of The CONSTITUTION, Gouverneur Morris proclaimed, There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority over their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell their country. By this vile traffic they become odious and contemptible .But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion. Does this remind you of anything? Im not going to get into the immorality of the Clinton administration, and its continuing saga, because we all know them and some will be put on paper as a reminder when preparing and giving a speech
Consider these statements made by some of our Founding Fathers: James Otis, arguing against the Writs of Assistance (1761), was considered to have begun the movement for American independence stated, The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God. Samuel Adams said, The only true basis of all government is the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of heaven, designed by the all benevolent creator. George Washington also stated, Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. Purity of morals is the only sure foundation of public happiness in any country. The federal government can never be in danger of degenerating so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of people. True religion affords to government its surest support. Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society. John Adams said, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. He was not the only prominent Founder who stated a moral republic was what our constitutional government designed. The Continental Congress itself stated in 1778, Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.
Now tell me, does all this sound like our Founding Fathers intended a wall between church and state??? I think it means prayer in all public schools and all public events where appropriate! It means crime and punishment! It means the government should stay out of religion but religion should influence government on moral issues! For 170 years after the ratification of The CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS, no court had ever struck down any prayer, in any form, in any location! Also, one might consider the reason public schools were created in the 1820s. It was for the sole purpose of asuring that children would be able to read the Bible. Let me say that again! The sole purpose for creating public schools was to be sure children could read, and the purpose for their reading was to read the Bible!
So why all the dissension about the First Amendment, prayer and separation of church and state? First, whats been going on the last fifty plus years is not what the Founders intended in their great wisdom. Secondly, if an amendment can be changed, or abolished, or laws made and distorted by the courts, then others can be done likewise, and most of the time it is not for the good of the country or its citizenry. The enlightened liberal revisionists, mentioned earlier, have also said some interesting things. Another belief they have is that their judgment and lawmaking ability is better than a Divine source, as their direction to lawmaking is toward man instead of natural and Divine law. The onslaught on our Constitution really began in a very subtle manner as the country moved into the 20th. Century, intensified in the 1950s, and really began to steamroll in the early 1960s. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1930-1941) declared, We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1902, stated, The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories (for) the prejudices which judges share with their fellowmen have a good deal more to do than the syllogism (legal reasoning process) in determining the rules by which men should be governed. Benjamin Cardoza, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1932, encouraged the court to eliminate the use of its foundational precedents by stating, I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life. George Washington warned of these types of individuals in his farewell address, If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which The Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. Thomas Jefferson had some doubts about the judiciary as he stated, Our Constitution .intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check & balance one another, it has given---according to this opinion---to one of them along the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation .The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. This is the big dissension, that our Constitution has been turned into wax by the courts and revisionists, mostly by a Democrat controlled congress giving in to the courts on critical issues, and doing their own damage by legislation. They shape a statute, or reshape an existing one, to their liking, and declare it to be the law of the land and very firm in its meaning, although it may violate Constitutional principles altogether. The very arrogance of the judicial and those liberal lawmakers!!!
Now, let us assume some of you out there are complete and unashamedly atheists. It is in your best interest, and so everyone elses, to have a very stable government, just laws, a free society and a citizenry not violent and contemptible. Consider these thoughts. William Patterson, signer of The CONSTITUTION and U.S. Supreme Court Justice stated, Religion and morality are necessary to good government, good order and good laws. Another signer, Charles Carroll said, Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
Religion is consistent and does not change, except in the minds of those enlightened ones spoken of earlier. Generally speaking, and demonstrated over the centuries, the precepts of mankind do change, and often many times not for good. Since 1963, religion has been under very intense attack in the U.S. and western world. Immorality, violent crimes & behavior, low educational achievement, family instability and a loss of character, dishonesty and lack of integrity in government officials are the fruits of revisionism and much has gone the wrong way. Once again, the vast majority of this has come under the guardianship of the Democrat Party while in power. Benjamin Franklin stated, History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of public religion and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. It has been showing for decades!
One last thing to contemplate is the Supreme Court Building itself, completed in 1935. As one walks through the columns and looks up, one can see the Ten Commandments inscribed into the building. This is further evidence of the role religion has played in the establishment, maturation and longevity of our country. Many moral principles and laws have simply been ignored, bringing us to the degenerative state we are in today.
Part two, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, means just what it says. There is a right to exercise ones religion as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. There are limitations and responsibilities to such as so-called religions that require a live sacrifice.
Part three and four, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. These have many restrictions imposed by our Founding Fathers. Contemporary laws on profanity, obscenity, immoral behavior and political correctness have also altered these freedoms.
Here is what some of the Founders thought about these sections of the First Amendment. James Wilson stated that, What is meant by the liberty of the press is that there should be no antecedent restraint upon it; but that every author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government, or of the safety, character and property of the individual. Wilson was one of six signers of both the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and CONSTITUTION, an original Supreme Court Justice appointed by President Washington, and a law professor. Another Supreme Court Justice and a father of American jurisprudence, Joseph Story, stated, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That this Amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print whatever he might please without any responsibility, public or private, therefore, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would allow every citizen a right to destroy at his pleasure the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen. And James Kent, New York Supreme Court Chief Justice, First Professor of Law at Columbia, wrote the celebrated COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, 1826-1830, and along with Justice Story, is known as the father of American Jurisprudence, wrote, Every citizen might speak, write and print, on any subject, but is responsible for the abuse of liberty. Without such a check, the press, in the hands of evil and designing men, would become a most formidable engine (instrument) as mighty for mischief as for good. In an 1811, N.Y. court case, The People v. Ruggles, the defendant made vile, profane and disparaging remarks about Jesus Christ and The Virgin Mary. He was sentenced to 90 days and a $500 fine. Chief Justice Kent stated, Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.
In an 1815, Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Commonwealth v. Sharpless, the defendant showed, in private, an obscene painting representing a man in an obscene and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth and other citizens of this commonwealth. The defense claimed this was a private viewing and was not an indictable offense. Part of the court ruling stated, Crimes are public offenses not because they are perpetrated publicly, but because their effect is to injure the public. Burglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable hence, it follows, that an offense may be punishable if in its nature and by its example it tends to the corruption of morals; although it be not committed in public. The corruption of the public mind, in general and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most injurious consequences . No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people; secret poison cannot be thus disseminated.
Well, is it this way today? Hardly!!! All this nonsense began in a court case in 1947, Everson v. Board of Education, and has regressed into what we have today. People wear obscene T-shirts, profanity & lewdness bombard us over the airways and on the screen, and on & on & on, all of which undermines the moral fiber of the nation and make us weak as a country. Again, most of this has happened under Democrat Party watch.
There will be no discussion on parts five or six.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Article II of the BILL OF RIGHTS, the 2nd. Amendment, is quite clear to me; however, liberal revisionists are noted for twisting, turning, maligning and distorting facts and the plain and simple truth. Once again, one must go back some 200-250 years to obtain definitions of what things meant at that time. Fortunately, there are not many as far as weapons are concerned. The big word in this amendment is militia.
It is the contention of some that militia means the National Guard. Well, is it of any consequence that the NG was created around 1917? I think so! (Incidentally, the Federal Reserve System, graduated income tax and direct election of senators were passed as law in 1913). So what does the word militia mean? Lets hear it from some of the Founding member of Continental Fathers. Richard Henry Lee, member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1758-1775), Congress (1774-1779, 1784-1785), where he made a resolution which led to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, served as President of Congress in 1777, member of the State Ratification Convention for the Federal Constitution (1788), U.S. Senator 1789-1792, where he helped frame the BILL OF RIGHTS and many other distinguishing achievements. What a list of credentials! I think Lee might know something about the original intent of the 2nd. Amendment. Well, he did! He stated, A militia, when properly formed, are, in fact, the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms .To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . This statement was from ADDITIONAL LETTERS FROM THE FEDERAL FARMER 53, 1788. George Mason, another member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (1759), drafted Virginias first constitution which contained the famous DECLARATION OF RIGHTS from which Thomas Jefferson drew for the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, member of the Virginia House of Delegates 1776-1788, delegate to the Constitutional Convention but refused to sign the document because it neither abolished slavery nor adequately protected states rights (1787), led opposition to Virginias ratification convention, and as a result, was largely responsible for the first ten amendments to the CONSTITUTION, called the Father of the BILL OF RIGHTS and refused to be one of Virginias first two senators in order to pursue private life. Another great list of credentials! At the Virginia Ratification Convention (1788), Mason stated, I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people .To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. Case closed---or it should be!!! By the CONSTITUTION, the states have power of everything not mentioned, as stated in the 10th. Amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. The 2nd. Amendment is delegated to the United States and must come under federal protection; yet, unscrupulous office holders use every excuse to rip and tear at the amendment in order to impress liberal constituents who really dont know the issue and that issue is in the hearts of people and not in a firearm. I challenge anyone to place a firearm in the corner of a room and watch it. One will find the only things that will move that firearm are forces of nature and mankind, or possibly it should be said the hearts and minds of mankind! Remember, a firearm does not and cannot pull its own trigger!!!
The following statements are from other Founding Fathers and are quite clear as to their intent. At the Massachusetts U.S. Constitutional Ratification Convention (1788), Samuel Adams exclaimed, The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. During Virginias ratification convention (1788), Patrick Henry exclaimed, Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. In the HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA (1759, and before the move for independence was afoot), Benjamin Franklin prophetically stated, They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. In the Virginia State Constitution, Thomas Jefferson stated that no free man shall be debarred the use of arms in his own hands. He had earlier copied into his COMMONPLACE BOOK (the source of his ideas on government) these sentiments from ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria: False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes .Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. And finally, St. George Tucker, who held the highest judgeship in Virginia, was a distinguished Revolutionary War officer wounded at Yorktown and wrote his five-volume essay, VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, to republicanize (republic) Sir William Blackstones COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, graphically stated, after repeating the 2nd. Amendment, This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Kind of scary, isnt it!
The reality of keeping and bearing arms goes back much further than the years of independence. English common law guaranteed, under the English Bill of Rights, the right of arms ownership, and the Greek philosopher Aristotle considered popular arms ownership the single most reliable indicator of whether a society was free. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists from traveling unless they were well armed. In 1631, the law required citizens to engage in target practice every Sunday and bring their peeces to church. Massachusetts, in 1644, imposed a six shilling fine upon anyone not armed, and in 1770, at least one colony required men to carry a rifle or pistol every time they attended church. Church officials were empowered to search each parishioner no less than 14 times per year to assure compliance. In 1673, Virginia would buy citizens their firearms if they were too poor to afford one. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but bonded servants, must own firearms. Massachusetts is now sometimes sadly, but jokingly called, the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, as is California.
The opposition to firearms will go all out to misrepresent facts and outright lie and resort to fraud in satisfying its agenda. This may sound harsh but facts bare the truth of it! I have two examples. One is from an Emory University researcher, Michael Bellesiles, who claims that a maximum of only 10% of colonists and early U.S. citizens owned firearms. This is utter nonsense because he is basing this data on wills. I havent researched it but I personally dont think, at that day and time, people put firearms in their wills unless the arms were something very special. Then, there were many people who didnt have wills; they simply handed things down. Personally speaking, my father handed down a rifle to me and my grandfather handed down an old Russell shotgun, and none of these weapons were in their will! (A note of interest, that after this original writing, Michael Bellesiles was forced to resign in disgrace from Emory University because he falsified much of his writings in his book on firearms). The most blatant and unscrupulous act of dishonesty was committed by the demagogue, Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee. It was in August, 1999, when the Saxet Gun Show convened at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston. Jackson-Lee, and her companions, entered the building and one of them attempted to buy a silencer from a Class III dealer. The dealer explained the taxes, fees, background checks, waiting period and paperwork, and the companion then asked if the sale could be made under the table because he wanted it that day. It was then the whole group was ordered to leave the hall. Ironically, and immediately after they departed the show, she held a press conference and said the show demonstrated the need for more gun control. Jackson-Lee stated, Anyone can come off the street, and they can walk out of here with a gun. Well, neither she nor any of her cronies did!! Possibly she is still under the shock that the flag is on the moon and not the planet Mars! Obviously, she did not comment about any of her group attempting to illegally purchase the silencer. Now lets see; there was lying, fraud & misrepresentation, and defying the law of the CONSTITUTION. In other words, demagoguery.
In another light, Mr. Stephen P. Halbrook wrote an article on the Swiss. Switzerland has very little crime but guns are everywhere. Every male, 20-42 years old, is required to keep rifles & pistols at home, with ammunition, and on retirement from the military, every soldier may keep these arms and purchase additional weapons, even assault rifles, if he chooses. In WWII, the Nazi war machine avoided Switzerland because they deemed it would be too costly as the Swiss had great shooting skills and would be difficult to conquer and pacify. Other European countries had strict gun controls and registration; and as they were conquered, the Nazis had all the information needed on the registration, so they simply confiscated all firearms. The Swiss have a strong sense of civic virtue and well-armed citizens deter crime. Americas lawful gun culture is as peaceful as the Swiss. Sadly, some of Americas subcultures are not.
The Swiss preparation probably prevented an invasion of their country by Hitlers Nazi Stormtroopers and the United States armed citizen may have also prevented an invasion of our own country. In an article in the May/June, 2001, Texas State Rifle Association Magazine shows how close we came to having pitch battles on our homeland during WWII and reads as follows: In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, and most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans---men who had fought each other at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another. Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commanders face as he frankly answered the question. You are right, he told the Americans. We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand. Please keep in mind that an armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject!
Below is an article from The Texas State Rifle Association Magazine by the father of a student killed at Columbine High School in a speech given to the U.S. House of Representatives. It is very good; please mentally digest it well!
Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of
the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado,
was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee.
What he said to our national leaders during this special
session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for
what he was to say, nor was it received well.
It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician,
every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert!
These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating,
and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice
crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the
hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the
seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott,
and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children
must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.
"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel
out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it
NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and
the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.
"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at
how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.
I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun.
I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that
they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe
that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do
with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.
"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a
it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the
real blame lies. Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of
the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.
"I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.
This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of
body,soul, and Spirit.
When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up,
we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush
in and wreak havoc.
Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems
for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as
theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened
to us as a nation?
We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to
hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's
tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as
They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute
to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need
more restrictive laws.
"Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors.
No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this
type of massacre.
The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political
restrictive are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold
the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not
We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television
evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not
need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic
needs are being ignored.
We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgment that this nation
was founded on the principle of simple trust in God!
"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his
two friends murdered before his very eyes - He did not hesitate to pray
in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I
challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize
that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought
back to our schools.
Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.
Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for
legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.
To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I
give to you a sincere challenge:
Dare to examine your own heart before cast the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain!
The young people of this country will not allow that to
DEVOTION TO POLITICAL PARTIES
I dont have the exact quote, but Teddy Roosevelt once stated that if the government is being efficiently operated in the best welfare of the nation and its citizens, it is unpatriotic not to support it. If the government is being operated inefficiently, it is unpatriotic not to oppose it. The same philosophy goes for any political party. It is within this definition that I cannot understand the logic of what is known as yellow dog Democrats, because the Democrat Party isnt what it used to be.
They now champion high taxes, relaxed abortion and partial birth policies, homosexuality, unfair & often idiotic environmental schemes, heavy regulation & more bureaucracy, weaker military, massive welfare, redistribution of income, taking away incentives for business and on & on & on. Once again, these things are schemes to control our lives within their authority, create power for themselves and to have a large pool of money to give away for the purpose of buying votes and obligating as many voters to themselves as possible.
The spirit of a political party, just as the spirit of the CONSTITUTION, can be very bad indeed. Ill give you another example, and I know you have examples of your own. On national television news, Senator Byrd (D., W.V., and former member of the KKK) stated he knew Bill Clinton was guilty of all the charges brought before the senate, yet did he vote to convict him? Absolutely not! Im sure many others felt the same way; however, party loyalty fell into play, and if my memory serves me correctly, only one Democrat voted to convict. This is a sad commentary on the senate and Democrat Party. I suppose one of the most severe cases of this kind of conduct would be that of the very biased and maddog attitude of Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.). It is a terrible thing when one compromises his integrity and character to enhance his own personal greed over his country or to put his political party before the nation.
George Washington made some interesting comments on this matter as found in his farewell address and other quotes. Also, David Bartons ORIGINAL INTENT adds some very good emphasis. Washington, in the ADDRESS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES .PREPARING TO HIS DELIBERATION, P. 19-21, stated, Let me now warn you in the most solumn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party .The common and continual mischief of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeebles the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another .In governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. Barton goes on to say that Washington was not saying to abolish political parties as they are a necessary vehicle to offer candidates to the electorate.
Benjamin Rush, a very religious man, as were most of the Founding Fathers, signed the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, long-time Treasurer of the U.S. Mint, called Father of American Medicine, educator, member of the Continental Congress and many other distinctions, said, I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him. Rush served in the administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, each of whom came from a different political party. Barton makes a very good emphasis in this by quoting Proverbs 29:2, When the righteous rule, the people rejoice, when the wicked rule, the people groan. This verse was also quoted by William Patterson, a signer of the CONSTITUTION and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, as stated in the UNITED STATES ORACLE, May 24, 1800.
Also in his farewell address, Washington states, The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, in itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. This has the earmarks of the contemporary Democrat Party and has Clinton and his gang all over it.
I strongly suggest reading WASHINGTONS FAREWELL ADDRESS. There are topics on the union of states, harmony, special interest & factions, religion & morality, international policy, political alliances, trade and more.
THE ECONOMY AND TAXES
These are some brief items that will help the memory. Let it be said and understood, right up front, that excessive taxes on citizens and business thwarts the economy. A tax increase cannot stimulate the economy because it takes money out of private hands and business and gives it to government. If you think government spending stimulates the economy, remember the great depression when government had all kinds of work projects that did little or nothing? The highest point of the depression was in 1933; the second highest, 1938!
Tax cuts do stimulate the economy and there are two contemporary examples of this. The first was JFKs cut in 1964, after his death, which improved the economy. The second was Ronald Reagans giant tax cut, which lowered the top private sector percentage from 70% to 28%.
The Jimmy Carter years were terrible for the economy. The last year, or more, of his term, most companies could not quote a firm price on anything, because of inflation, unless they had it in stock, and certainly not precious metal or copper. Inflation was in the high teens, interest in the low twenties and the Democrat Congress, since the inception of The Great Society in 1964, had increased the top tax bracket to 70%. Congress began taking away write offs for business such as lunches, boats, some car expenses, etc. They were literally destroying the goose that laid the golden egg! To simplify, congress was destroying incentive---I N C E N T I V E; defined by Webster as something that incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action. When this is taken away, taxes are increased and all coupled with inflation, the economy will shrivel up like the proverbial prune. And it did!
So why did the Democrats resort to all this negative policy? They havent learned, or
have they?! The three things behind this policy are money, control, and thus, power. Democrats control congress and vote for higher taxes and they have money. They create massive programs called entitlements in which they give money to the lower income, thus, obligating this segment to them, and being obligated, these people will, as mentioned before, prostitute themselves by voting the conscience of their purse. This is not an American invention. The first social security known was created by Germanys Iron Chancellor, Otto Von Bismark (1815-1898), and he called it a pension! Said Bismark, Whoever has a pension for his old age is far easier to handle, thus creating a dependence upon the state for anyone with a pension. Now before this gets to the rumor that Elliott is against Social Security, let me clarify these statements. We pay for SS, and therefore, we deserve it! My complaint is that it is forced upon us and I believe in self-reliance. The City of Galveston opted to go the private sector for their employees retirement and its worth nine (9) times what SS will give them upon retirement. But back to the Democrats. As previously stated, they were buying votes with our tax dollars through excessive welfare, entitlements and the like, thus, obligating voters to them.
Ronald Reagans tax reduction changed much of this by, as earlier stated, reducing the top tax bracket from 70% to 28%, with corresponding reductions in lesser brackets. Thats more than double in the proper direction! The result of this was almost eight years of consistent economic expansion, creation of millions of new jobs, a 20% increase in civilian employment and very low unemployment. Accompanied by sound monetary and fiscal policy, the country grew itself out of the recession. When Reagan took office in 1981, income tax receipts were just over $500B and when he left office in 1989, after this great tax cut, income tax receipts were just over $900B. Tax cuts do work in bringing a stagnant economy back to life. There was a slight downward trend when George Bush increased taxes in 1990, on the heels of his no new taxes, read my lips pledge (shame).
Enter Bill Clinton (& Hillary). His claim about the countrys economy in 1992, being the worst economy in fifty years was a sensational lie! On January 19, 1992, Clinton made a campaign promise in the New Hampshire primary that stated, I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt were going to make to have a short-term economic strategy and a long-term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this country going again. Not only did he not champion a tax cut after he was elected, but in 1993, he implemented one of the largest tax increases, $253 billion, in the countrys history, with the top tax bracket raised to 39.6%. Even with this large increase, the good Reagan did has spilled over and kept the economy in very good condition. And another thing about this Clinton tax increase; there was a 50-50 tie in the senate and guess who cast the deciding yea to implement this high tax? Yep, you know it was the President of the Senate, Al Gore, and he knew there was a rider on the bill that increased SS age from 65 to 67, for those born in 1960, or later. Include this in your speech where appropriate. Oh sure, Gore and Clinton and the rest of the Democrat Party were really looking out for SS recipients. Incidentally, the very first thing Clinton did when he took office was to push very hard for homosexual rights in the military.
Clinton boasted of and took credit for any budget surpluses. This term, budget surplus, should be referred to as a tax surplus because thats where government derives operating capital, from the taxpayers. It is the opinion of Bill Clinton that the budget can be balanced and the deficit paid down by increasing taxes, thus making the country prosperous. This is such a foolish concept that it leads me to believe he was up to something else like more control, buying more votes or who knows what else. This policy will shrink jobs and business activity like that prune spoken of earlier, depending on how severely it is implemented; whereas, reducing taxes will put more disposable income in peoples hands to spend on goods and services. It will increase business activity and the economy will expand on an activity much greater than before the tax cut, while taxpayers are paying fewer taxes. Once again, it allows the economy to grow itself out of stagnation. Other notable things to remember is that all this bragging Clinton did about surpluses began around 1997-1998, and the Republican majority in congress first convened in January, 1995, and implemented some sensible measures which trickled down and had an effect on the surplus. Also, Clintons talk of balancing the budget and paying off the national debt was rhetoric and a blatant lie in an attempt to impossibly improve his legacy! He did not have plans to do this , because in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office forecast $200 billion deficits every year for the foreseeable future.
Then there is Hillary! If her national health care plan, called the Clinton health care plan, had been implemented, one-seventh of our economy would have been nationalized; and for doctors to opt out of the program, they would be committing a crime. Yes, a crime! That goes beyond socialism! Its communism or facism or nazism! Fortunately, it couldnt pass even a Democrat controlled congress. Ask Canadians, who go south to the U.S. for their medical care, about nationalized medicine. Clinton then had the audacity to say, We cant do anything else on the deficit if we fail to curb the monster of spiraling health care costs. The deficit did disappear without this socialistic nonsense being implemented, as he implied the deficit could be brought down by implementing a very expensive nationalized health care. He was implying that nationalized health care, one-seventh of our economy, would be cheaper than the existing health care situation. Next, Clinton would advocate more taxes to pay for it and more government control and more reliance on government by the people. Same old song just a different verse, and more utter nonsense!
I know weve all heard it many times about the rich not paying their fair share of taxes. According to the IRS, people in the top one-percent of income, $250,736 or more, paid 33.2% of all income taxes for 1997. In 1981, the top one-percent paid 17.5%. For 1997, the top five-percent, people making over $108,048, or more, paid 51.9% of all income taxes, up from 51% the year before. Thats one out of every twenty paying more than half of all taxes! In 1981, the top five-percent paid 37%. Consider the top 50% of taxpayers in 1997. They paid 96% of all income taxes, or almost all of it, which leaves only four-percent of taxes paid by the remaining 50%! A point to make when you are addressing a black audience is to ask if you know of any decent athlete who makes less than $250.000/yr. (possibly a poor golfer or tennis player). That puts these people in the top one-percent and subjects them to the pillaging and plundering of the federal government. They, and their heirs, are subject to the 55% estate tax and everyone is subject to the marriage tax (an assault on families). All this legislative tax theft was created by a Democrat controlled congress!
Some people dont understand what a percentage means. To get the meaning of what was just explained, you, as a speaker, must take a few seconds to explain this in terms your audience will understand. Think about what you are going to say on this subject before your speech. Also, there is a quote worth repeating by THE COMMON SCHOOL ALMANAC, 1839. A demagogue would like a people half-educated; enough to read what he says, but not enough to know whether it is true or not. Unfortunately, many audiences you speak to will be in this educational curve. Do not assume anything, depending on your audience, in your explanation on the subject at hand. Clinton, and his cronies, played the demagogue for eight years to the people and put forth any false claim they could scheme to fit their purpose. We are making speeches to educate, and once again, do not leave people to wonder the outcome of your point. Spell it out---with pathos, enthusiasm and truth!
ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY
These are some very quick things to know and to remind you that audiences may have questions on these topics. Anyone would be very foolish indeed to disregard the environment and not have provisions to keep the earth clean and water pure. However, some environmentalists will go to extreme measures to get their agenda heard.
For instance, in the case of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest, some environmentalists testified to a congressional committee that these owls could only nest and reproduce in old growth timber. Several months after this so-called testimony, a pair of Spotted Owls were spotted nesting in a K-Mart sign at a busy strip center. It sounds like these owls arent as particular as the individuals claim! These same folks will spray paint on fur coats, spike trees & roads, blow whistles at hunters and many other forms of idiotic behavior. A Fox T.V. crew interviewed a girl in a cage dressed in some furry looking outfit protesting Saks Fifth Avenues fur sale. She had two companions outside passing out leaflets condemning fur coats. The T.V. commentator saw the caged girl wearing leather sandals and had some great fun with it. Their credibility was gone. Im sure they probably brought the cage, and themselves, in a gasoline burning, oil & grease lubricated car with an internal combustion engine.
But now to hypocrisy on a higher lever, and who better to condemn than Bill Clinton. This is more than hypocrisy; it is corruption! In the southern part of the state of Utah, there was an operating coal mine that produced a certain type of ore, low sulphur, I believe. Clinton nationalized the whole area into a national park that ceased the mining operation. His Indonesian friend, who donated vast sums to his campaign, is also in the low sulphur coal mining business, and thus, a major competitor was eliminated. Thats a huge political payback at the expense of Americans.
The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Interior Department have been doing everything in their power to minimize public access to public lands. What is public land? Isnt it for the use of the public, with certain reasonable restraints, paid for by taxpayers? These agencies are defying law and are ignoring basic rights of citizens, including property rights, existing federal statutes and the clearly expressed will and laws of congress. Many of these recent infractions have been taken on the heels of the barrage of executive orders and pardons Clinton put into play the month before his departure.
The energy policy of the Clinton/Gore administration has caused the high rise in fuel prices and spot shortages---or rather I should say, the lack of an energy policy. The Clinton regulatory policies, now thankfully of the past, plus the Democrats unwillingness to allow the U.S. to drill for more of our own oil, are the real reasons for rising prices and spot shortages. This also makes us hostage to the oil producing nations, especially in the Middle-East. Both of these former officeholders wanted to prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where it is estimated that there may be as much as 16 billion barrels of oil. It has also been stated that only about 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres would be used in this recovery. But the environmentalists scream on that the polar bear and caribou would lose tremendously in the effort.
There has been an example of this type of operation going on for the past two decades, near this proposed sight, at Prudhoe Bay, that pulls out 1.4 million barrels/day without harming anything. In fact, the bears are doing just fine and caribou herds have increased in number and only two-percent of the 250,000 acres are being used for rigs, production, and roads, reports the Washington based Environmental Policy Task Force.
And there is hypocrisy in Al Gore, who inherited hundreds of thousands of dollars of Occidental Petroleum stock. The U.S. Navy had a strategic supply of underground oil reserves in California and Occidental wanted it; and they got it, with the help of Al Gore! He did this out of greed because he knew the stock would go up significantly, and it did. Like father, like son, I suppose, because Armand Hammer, who started Occidental, once boasted that he had Al Gores father, then a senator from Tennessee, in his back pocket!
California, as we know, has energy problems. It is of their own making because the state was supposed to deregulate and it did not! They have not constructed any new power plants or pipelines in a number of years and their crisis is yet to come as summer arrives. By contrast, Pennsylvania deregulated and built new power generating plants and now enjoy a 17% reduction in costs. California continues along their socialist path of health care for illegals, high taxes, harsh restrictions on business and many other schemes that destroy incentives and pillage & plunder the taxpayer. Possibly this energy crisis will awaken the voters in that state and rid them of these foolish policies.
I could go on & on, but I really get disgusted with hearing things like this; however, some of them must be told, where appropriate, because most people dont know the truth about many of those associated with the Democratic Party. Remember, there is a time and place to insert things Clinton, Gore, the environmentalists and others have done, so use discretion for your knockout punch. Try to avoid being negative and use this in a positive vein, if possible.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION & EDUCATION
Allowing someone entrance to a university or access to a job and not be qualified could have disasterous consequences. Affirmative Action proposed just that! It puts minorities into a position of responsibility when some are simply not competent to do the job. This is not an indictment on minorities, but just individuals who are not qualified for specific positions who happen to be minorities. And obviously, there are whites who dont qualify for certain positions either.
This type of winking someone into a position will hurt minority causes for higher education and better jobs because many will fail as their qualifications & competency fall short of what is required. Some will barely get by and be on the bottom step of the ladder, barely hanging on, and sometimes obviously hanging on only because they are minorities.
If this were on a competitive basis, such as George Bush implementing in Texas high schools, the parity will be fair and equal, allowing competition in the market place. Under Governor Bush, Texas made a law giving the top 10% of high school graduates admission to a Texas school of higher learning. This is fair, but it has caused universities some difficulties in that some high schools are not as academically advanced as others. Affirmative action will cause bitterness toward those it was designed to benefit and some incompetence in the work force. Nobody should wonder, when on an operating table, if the doctor, or support staff, is competent; or on boarding an airplane and have doubts about the ability of the cockpit crew! Affirmative action has the potential for stagnation of the work ethic of those who benefit from its intentions, as those eligible know they will not have to work as hard to qualify or maintain their status. This is simply another form of welfare, and like welfare, it will hurt the work ethic.
Vouchers are the hot topic for education. Harvard University did an in depth study in New York, Washington D.C. and Dayton, Ohio and found random sampled black students, who were switched to private schools, did six-percent better, and parents reported huge improvements in school-parent communication, discipline and homework. Of course, the National Education Association is for taxpayer-funded status quo because vouchers will erode their power base. Howard Fuller, a former public school superintendent in Milwaukee, who heads the Black Alliance for Education Options told THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, Its absolutely clear there is high support for vouchers in the African-American community. The MONITOR reports that recent polls for vouchers were as high as 83%. Incidentally, among those pushing for vouchers in Washington D.C. was none other than Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman; that is until Gore tapped him for V.P. candidate. He had to change his position on other things such as partial birth abortion. A really principled fellow. Utterly disgusting!!!
THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS
The Framers reasoned that if the federal government has only delegated powers, it is unnecessary to state what things the government cannot do. It cannot do anything the CONSTITUTION does not authorize it to do. It has powers delegated to it in the CONSTITUTION and no others; all powers not delegated to the federal government are withheld from it.
Many reasoned that this being logical, a bill of rights was unnecessary. Alexander Hamilton argued that by itemizing certain rights, we may be jeopardizing those rights we have not mentioned and it was thought the protection of rights was primarily the business of state courts and state constitutions. At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal for a bill of rights, initiated by George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, was defeated. Later, it appeared the new Constitution would not be ratified without a bill of rights, so James Madison promised to see this would be done after ratification. He kept his promise and twelve amendments were put to the states for ratification and the first two failed, leaving our first ten.
The adoption of the BILL OF RIGHTS did not mean Hamiltons concerns that naming some rights might lead to the forfeiture of others, and thus, the Ninth Amendment came into being, which states, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In essence, it says that the fact that certain rights have been singled out for specific protection does not mean that other rights not named are forfeited. It also reinforces that rights come from God and rely only on government for protection.
The Ninth Amendment does not license new and unheard of rights such as abortion and homosexuality as some claim. It protects rights retained by the people, not newly acquired rights. Protection under the Ninth Amendment comes under the then existing English and American common law.
In a sense, the Ninth & Tenth Amendments are truisms, for they state principles that the Framers assumed were generally understood. I dont think the Founders realized the cunning, ruthless, unprincipled and unethical character that would challenge our republic in these days and times. The CONSTITUTION gives the federal government very specific and limited powers, and beyond that, the 10th. Amendment gives all else to the States or to the people; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. The language in the 10th. Amendment is very clear but it has been abused so much that the states are now the government with very restricted powers.
Coupling was a brazen and illegal court act revisionists got away with that changed dramatically the states power position in relation to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, to guarantee state citizenship to emancipated slaves. In the infamous Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the court attached the Fourteenth Amendment to the First Amendment and the result was twofold: first, the court revised the First Amendment pertaining only to the federal government; second, the court declared that federal courts were now empowered to restrict not only religious activities of the federal government but also those of states and individuals. Even the liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said in 1970, by coupling the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, the court not only removed state sovereignty over many areas, but it had also created an American revolution which involved the imposition of new and far-reaching constitutional restraints on the states. Nationalization of many civil liberties has the historic position that the foundations of those liberties rested largely in state law .And so the revolution occasioned by the Fourteenth Amendment has progressed as Article after Article in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated in it and made applicable to the states.
There were precedents for not doing this selective incorporation as it has been called, but they were all ignored. In 1875, the Blaine Amendment was proposed and it would have done the same thing that was done in the 1940s, but it was rejected by the congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the McCollum Court (1948) noted that not only the Blaine Amendment, but also five similar ones that would have applied the First Amendment against the States were rejected by that congress. It was very clear that the Fourteenth was not to be coupled to the First.
This nonsense will never stop. We must be vigilant always and not just sit and wait for one of their attacks, but attack the opposition ourselves in getting back our lost liberties. If we do not become aggressive, our Constitution will literally hang by a thread as a religious leader once said it will in the future.
I will post his other responses to the questionnaire shortly and will link from there.