Posted on 09/19/2006 12:24:56 PM PDT by LuxMaker
Those of us who have served in the U.S. military are familiar with the oath "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
As such, I would like to ask the rhetorical question, how many people taking this oath actually understand what they are undertaking?
For purposes of discussion I would like to see a dissection of the Constitution of the United States on what people believe the document to espouse. Please maintain a narrow focus and for now, exclude the Amendments to the Constitution. The second purpose of this thread is to pose the questions: "Is the government unconstitutional in its present framework or are the people in it, or both?" "If so what should be our function and purpose accordingly for those that have taken the above oath?"
Absolutely no flaming, trolling, personal attacks (ad hominem or otherwise) or any other derailment will be allowed here. Please, I ask that all posts be directed with the sole purpose of developing a better, more in-depth understanding of the Constitution of the United States and how it applies to the above oath.
Will there be a test at the end of the semester?
Constitution -- Fulfillment of the Promise
Bump for later investigation and discussion.
Know the oath well...
Good start. Since my avocation is the study of money, I'd like to point out that the founders intended that we use gold and silver coins as 'primary money' because anything else is debt and they didn't want us to be in debt, as debtor/creditor relationships create necessarily a slave/master relationship. Whether you are paid by check from the deposits of another or cash by federal reserve notes, you are not really being paid but it is just shifting debts around, changing relative indebtedness. The largest population of people taking the oath to support the constitution without enforcing it in their personal lives with respect to their jobs and pay, without insisting it be followed, is the personnel of the armed services. They allow themselves to be paid with the monetized debt of the nation when they should be insisting on gold and silver coin as per art 1 sec 10 clause 1. But because they see their deposits as 'primary money' rather than what they are, the liabilities of others, it seems to make little difference to them as they can still spend it, and the illusion is maintained.
Defending our right to see through the fulfilment of the promise.
People that are employed by the US Government are human and subject to error through application of the 7 deadly sins. People step outside the framework of their employment all the time and cause a lot of grief. People working within the framework of their employment often interpret the employer rules for their own devices if given enough latitude. Then there are the people who just want to do their job, earn their paycheck and go home at night after an exhausting day. As far as lawlessness goes, one doesn't have to look any further than the US Congress to see an institution gone amuck, and does more to destroy the framework of our Constitution and our culture than any other for personal gain. Why? It doesn't have any institution to police to keep it on a leash. It professes to be able to control its own members, but we know that's a lie. How many times over the years has the members of the US Congress passed laws destroying the idea of our country?
I just now posted this on another thread!
To: LadyNavyVet
The problem is our leaders -- and that most assuredly includes the present "open borders" administration -- CONDONE the illegals coming into our country.
In view of the fact that these leaders have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution(and by definition the laws of the United States so embodied)one can only conclude that the aforementioned are (1)traitors (2) corrupt (3)or -- at the best -- incompetent.
So we can allow our leaders to fiddle (like Emperor Nero did as Rome burned)as our country is being raped, or we can fight back.
The choice is ours.
Throughout history, a "constitution" of a regime has been simply an emprical observation of how the regime is constituted (i.e. who holds what powers and how).
Our Constitution was the first lasting WRITTEN constitution, with all that entails. It also acted to expand the definition of "constitution" to include guaranteed rights, etc., along with mandates for the elements of federal government.
Activism/Chapters not
No test. Simply a 20 page paper, 12 pt and double spaced. Not counting the title page of course.
Is it really constitution week? If so, can you direct me to some explanation....
Is our tax burden constitutional as originally written?
One part of the Constitution that keeps rattling around in my brain is promote the general Welfare. I see the things that the government does sometimes and I wonder how this is constitutional in said light....
--------------------------------
from ...http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm
General Welfare
The “general welfare” clause is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution: first, in the preamble and second, it is found in Article 1, Section 8.
The preamble reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”
The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.
When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”
James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces . Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”
John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”
It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)
The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.
Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not. That is why the founders designed a FEDERAL system of government that provided only for the “GENERAL” (meaning- non-specific) WELFARE of the people by confining its services to things like “national defense” and “interstate commerce”. It leaves to the states the issues of HOW or WHEN other services are provided to specific sub-groups. HOWEVER (This is critical) the new government must represent the BEST INTERESTS of all the people, which logically means that it MUST be limited in scope, for the MORE a government undertakes, the more oppressive it becomes. Government MUST be ANCHORED in fundamental principles (see lecture notes).
If you advocate for federal spending on social welfare programs, you are describing a redistribution of income (MY income) for the benefit of Specific individual citizens INSTEAD of (for example) a strong national defense. Which of those activities is the government LEGALLY REQUIRED to perform? (hint: Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.)
If the Federal government MUST do certain things, and something is NOT EXPRESSLY STATED in the constitution as a duty of Federal Government, then HOW (or WHOM) should any other services be provided? (Hint: Tenth Amendment)
------------------------------------
Bottom line - with perhaps the best of intentions, previous congresses and administrations have strayed substantially from the constraints imposed by the original intent of the Consitution.
If you required a test of the politicians, voters aside, D.C. would be a very empty place.
Thanks!
Walter WIlliams wrote an excellent article on Constitution Day that ya'll might find relevant:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles.html
Following your post brings up an interesting situation.
In the Constitution, amended only by the Bill of Rights, a person must own real property (land) before they have the right to vote.
Furthermore, it follows from your post that any person paid directly by the government should not be allowed to vote at all, since this is the sort of conflict of interest of which you are speaking. Excepting members of the military, this includes CIA/FBI employees, CDC workers from the director to the janitors, public school teachers and other employees, etc. Such a conflict of interest would not be allowed in private industry at all, and is patently illegal on the face of it.
I believe changing three things would shape up many problems we are currently experiencing from the government.
These three things are;
Must own real property to vote.
No government employee or benificiary (SSI, welfare, farm subsidies, etc.) may vote.
All income taxes are due in a lump sum on April 15.
How long would such socialistic things as property taxes last under such conditions? I think about one election cycle.
Of course, this would change the tone of a lot of elections. Much of our current problems are folks who can't even manage themselves having a voice in the election of government officials, and the 50% of the people directly benefitting from government programs of enforced wealth redistribution. I know it's too late for any of this to happen, since the lowest 50% of wage earners pay less than 4% of the federal taxes.
Let's not even get into the blatant unconstitutionality of agencies such as the FDA, EPA, Dept of Ed, Dept of Energy, etc. under the eighth and tenth amendments.
I'm now donning by flameproof long johns.
I do believe your answer needs to be addressed to "Mack the Knife" and not me?
Sorry about that. I hope they see it.
Good to meet you anyway.
Madison, generally known as the father of the Constitution, considered that the phrase "general welfare" gave government no powers other than those enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. That's good enough for me, but not, apparently for many of our rulers, nor even for some freepers, who generally would have us believe that this phrase, combined with the "Commerce Clause," give the federal government the power to do pretty much whatever it deems necessary. Total power, in other words.
However, it's pretty clear that the Constitution has the primary purpose of setting the boundaries of the powers of the federal government...narrowly enough that it should not be able to threaten the general welfare (freedom).
A remark was made, by Walter Williams I think(?), that if the federal government would only do those things which the Constitution authorizes, then most of our tax burden would also be lifted.
Could you please read post 25?
"The largest population of people taking the oath to support the constitution without enforcing it in their personal lives with respect to their jobs and pay, without insisting it be followed, is the personnel of the armed services. They allow themselves to be paid with the monetized debt of the nation when they should be insisting on gold and silver coin as per art 1 sec 10 clause 1. But because they see their deposits as 'primary money' rather than what they are, the liabilities of others, it seems to make little difference to them as they can still spend it, and the illusion is maintained."
And what would you like those of us in the military to do? Give our paychecks back and demand gold or silver? Yeah, you can come to my house and explain that one to Mrs. Castillo. You will end up with an indention in your head in the shape of a frying pan!
The Constitution limited the power of the federal government. Since the power of the federal government is no longer limited, I think it's safe to say that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land.
Good links and commentary...
Thanks!
Is this an invitation to defend the Constitution that we have, or the one that Lincoln sent into Exile, the one that Roosevelt chained to the back door of socialism?
Discussing the Constitution should distinguish which constitution: the original; the one following the Civil War; the one FDR orchestrated; or the one we are dealing with today?
"please exclude Ammendments...?"
Ammendments are by definition essential parts to the constitution...
Also read the original oath and show me where it says Amendments as well and then I will find it relevant to this thread.
Gary North, most successful fraud in history mentions the book "secret debates" by yates.
I thought I'd throw this in since 'yall started with the "which constitution" idea. Why not question the constitution itself?
Remember, to lose the constitution is not to lose the rights it guarantees, for the constitution did not grant those rights. There is still the concept of right to keep and bear arms, and self defense, and militia, independent of the constitution. And if we lost the constitution, or the president suspended it, those rights would still adhere to the states and the people. You cannot destroy legal rights simply by suspending the document which is a written guarantee of those preexisting rights.
You wear the nation's military uniform proudly, yes? Answer this : this incident of navy brass dumping on a navy chaplain for wearing his uniform to a white house prayer gathering, when ordered not to; where do you stand? It is obviously a mutinous slap in the face to the president by atheists, you know his religious leanings, how should he deal with this mutiny? On the one hand you have the need for bose-coherency in combat : orders obeyed w/o question, and on the other hand the fermi-uniqueness/personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Here we have wonderful guys dying in combat every day in iraq/afghanistan for YOUR freedoms(freedom of speech)but denied those same freedoms when they are in uniform. Instead of being the last in line at the podium of free speech, haven't they earned the right to be FIRST in line? You go DIE for MY freedoms but you don't get those same freedoms when in uniform...how shameful of an attitude...
Me too, took it 5 times!
Please limit discussion to the original articles and not the Amendments to the Constitution.
With all due respect, I would like to comment on this. It is, IMHO, a section of the Constitution easily misread.
The section you are referring to, I believe, is Article I; Section 10:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts...
This is found in the legislative section of the Constitution and, in a nutshell, says that from henceforth the Federal Government, not the State(s), shall establish, maintain, regulate the design, weight, value, etc. of the currency of the United States of America. And that this particular federally controlled currency will be the only medium of exchange acceptable for trade/exchange, i.e. coin for a bag of apples; the payment of debt, including wages, fines, bonds, etc.
This way if the State of Virginia [let's say] passed a law that said,
"Gold and silver for interstate and federal debts, but to pay a state held debt, either by the state or held by someone residing in the state, the debtor MUST use Virginia state issue coinage/bills of credit."
The Federal could step in and say "Oh, no you don't..."
I believe changing three things would shape up many problems we are currently experiencing from the government.
These three things are;
Must own real property to vote.
No government employee or benificiary (SSI, welfare, farm subsidies, etc.) may vote.
All income taxes are due in a lump sum on April 15.
People can argue the pros and cons of what happened, but I believe it's important to understand the mindset and circumstances of the time before inventing a conspiracy.
The reason he thought it important was that as you indicated there were many bills of credit by different states, most if not all payable in spanish milled dollars, however far too many of them to honor but a fraction of them. Some were depreciated more than others. And when depreciated, people would try to settle debts in them, which resulted in an unjust transfer of wealth from the creditor to the debtor, when the creditor was forced to accept them. Sherman's object was to do away with this practice, ensure all debts were paid in gold and silver coin, thus protecting the value of the consideration that the creditor was due from the debtor.
Judges, including the Supreme Court do not have the authority to reinterpret the constitution based on their opinions or based on changes in moral standards that the perceive to have occurred in the citizenship.
The personal opinions of Judges on how things should be are not pertinent. Judges reinterpreting and effectively changing the Constitution is usurping power not granted to them under the Constitution. The Constitution itself spells out the only way it can be changed.
While the 9th Amendment tells us that the enumeration of specific rights is not a denial that people have other rights as well, the courts do not have the authority to define other rights. The courts have no authority to legislate.
The duty of the courts is to judge if the laws are being properly applied, and if the laws and the actions of the government are constitutional.
The courts changing the constitution and legislating are unconstitutional and undermine the constitution itself.
Since it is the Constitution describes our government, purposeful acts by Justices to change it's meaning are an attack on our government, a usurpation of authority, and tantamount to treason.
However, the Judicial branch does not bear the guilt for these unconstitutional acts alone. It is the duty of the Legislature to oversee the acts of the Judicary, to limit their appellate jurisdiction, and to impeach and remove Justices that overstep their authority.
The Legislature has failed as horribly in their duty as the Judicary has in theirs.
I will read the links tonight. Yeah, I wasn't really trying to start a conspiracy theory, just having a little fun there. Thanks for the links.
Saying Constitution without Amendments is like saying breathable Air without Oxygen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.