Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

James Madison - Limiting Government - Founders' Quotes
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties. ^ | 2/3/1792 | James Madison

Posted on 11/17/2008 10:44:04 AM PST by Loud Mime

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

Kudos to Constitution.org for this document!

-------------

On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.

House of Representatives, February 3, 1792.

Mr. GILES. The present section of the bill (he continued) appears to contain a direct bounty on occupations; and if that be its object, it is the first attempt as yet made by this government to exercise such authority; -- and its constitutionality struck him in a doubtful point of view; for in no part of the Constitution could he, in express terms, find a power given to Congress to grant bounties on occupations: the power is neither {427} directly granted, nor (by any reasonable construction that he could give) annexed to any other specified in the Constitution.

February 7, 1792.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. In the Constitution of this government, there are two or three remarkable provisions which seem to be in point. It is provided that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers. It is also provided that "all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States;" and it is provided that no preference shall be given, by any regulation of commercial revenue, to the ports of one state over those of another. The clear and obvious intention of the articles mentioned was, that Congress might not have the power of imposing unequal burdens -- that it might not be in their power to gratify one part of the Union by oppressing another. It appeared possible, and not very improbable, that the time might come, when, by greater cohesion, by more unanimity, by more address, the representatives of one part of the Union might attempt to impose unequal taxes, or to relieve their constituents at the expense of the people. To prevent the possibility of such a combination, the articles that I have mentioned were inserted in the Constitution.

I do not hazard much in saying that the present Constitution had never been adopted without those preliminary guards on the Constitution. Establish the general doctrine of bounties, and all the provisions I have mentioned become useless. They vanish into air, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a trace behind. The common defence and general welfare, in the hands of a good politician, may supersede every part of our Constitution, and leave us in the hands of time and chance. Manufactures in general are useful to the nation; they prescribe the public good and general welfare. How many of them are springing up in the Northern States! Let them be properly supported by bounties, and you will find no occasion for unequal taxes. The tax may be equal in the beginning; it will be sufficiently unequal in the end.

The object of the bounty, and the amount of it, are equally to be disregarded in the present case. We are simply to consider whether bounties may safely be given under the present Constitution. For myself, I would rather begin with a bounty of one million per annum, than one thousand. I wish that my constituents may know whether they are to put any confidence in that paper called the Constitution.

Unless the Southern States are protected by the Constitution, their valuable staple, and their visionary wealth, must occasion their destruction. Three short years has this government existed; it is not three years; but we have already given serious alarms to many of our fellow-citizens. Establish the doctrine of bounties; set aside that part of the Constitution which requires equal taxes, and demands similar distributions; destroy this barrier; -- and it is not a few fishermen that will enter, claiming ten or twelve thousand dollars, but all manner of persons; people of every trade and occupation may enter in at the breach, until they have eaten up the bread of our children.

Mr. MADISON. It is supposed, by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawback, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do any thing which they may think conducive to the general welfare! This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which have been cited are {428} to be considered as a sort of caption, or general description of the specified powers; and as having no further meaning, and giving no further powers, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever -- to all such, at least, as will admit the application of money -- which is giving as much latitude as any government could well desire.

I, sir, have always conceived -- I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived -- it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived -- that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers -- but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.

It is to be recollected that the terms "common defence and general welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them. On the contrary, it was always considered clear and certain that the old Congress was limited to the enumerated powers, and that the enumeration limited and explained the general terms. I ask the gentlemen themselves, whether it was ever supposed or suspected that the old Congress could give away the money of the states to bounties to encourage agriculture, or for any other purpose they pleased. If such a power had been possessed by that body, it would have been much less impotent, or have borne a very different character from that universally ascribed to it.

The novel idea now annexed to those terms, and never before entertained by the friends or enemies of the government, will have a further consequence, which cannot have been taken into the view of the gentlemen. Their construction would not only give Congress the complete legislative power I have stated, -- it would do more; it would supersede all the restrictions understood at present to lie, in their power with respect to a judiciary. It would put it in the power of Congress to establish courts throughout the United States, with cognizance of suits between citizen and citizen, and in all cases whatsoever.

This, sir, seems to be demonstrable; for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare. I shall be reminded, perhaps, that, according to the terms of the Constitution, the judicial power is to extend to certain cases only, not to all cases. But this circumstance can have no effect in the argument, it being presupposed by the gentlemen, that the specification of certain objects does not limit the import of the general terms. Taking these terms as an abstract and indefinite grant of power, they comprise all the objectsof legislative regulations -- as well such as fall under the judiciary article in the Constitution as those falling immediately under the legislative article; and if the partial enumeration of objects in the legislative article does not, as these gentlemen contend, limit the general power, neither will it be limited by the partial enumeration of objects in the judiciary article.

{429} There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow dearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

The language held in various discussions of this house is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other governments, to all cases not particularly excepted. In a very late instance -- I mean the debate on the representation bill -- it must be remembered that an argument much used, particularly by gentlemen from Massachusetts, against the ratio of 1 for 30,000, was, that this government was unlike the state governments, which had an indefinite variety of objects within their power; that it had a small number of objects only to attend to; and therefore, that a smaller number of representatives would be sufficient to administer it.

Arguments have been advanced to show that because, in the regulation of trade, indirect and eventual encouragement is given to manufactures, therefore Congress have power to give money in direct bounties, or to grant it in any other way that would answer the same purpose. But surely, sir, there is a great and obvious difference, which it cannot be necessary to enlarge upon. A duty laid on imported implements of husbandry would, in its operation, be an indirect tax on exported produce; but will any one say that, by virtue of a mere power to lay duties on imports, Congress might go directly to the produce or implements of agriculture, or to the articles exported? It is true, duties on exports are expressly prohibited; but if there were no article forbidding them, a power directly to tax exports could never be deduced from a power to tax imports, although such a power might indirectly and incidentally affect exports.

In short, sir, without going farther into the subject. Which I should not have here touched at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: founders; foundingfathers; government; jamesmadison; limited; madison; quotes; survivingobama

1 posted on 11/17/2008 10:44:06 AM PST by Loud Mime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Vision; definitelynotaliberal; Mother Mary; FoxInSocks; 300magnum; NonValueAdded; sauropod; ...

Ping

Please let me know if you would like to be on our Founders’ Quotes ping list


2 posted on 11/17/2008 10:47:35 AM PST by Loud Mime (CHANGE: Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

That’s funny, I just posted asking for this kind of stuff, and this shows up.

Thanks, and please add me to the list.


3 posted on 11/17/2008 10:49:38 AM PST by xmission (www.iwilldefendtheconstitution.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Ping, please add me to your list.
Thank You.


4 posted on 11/17/2008 10:52:02 AM PST by Rumplemeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

This post very adequately addresses a subject currently in the forefront of our news cycles and needs nothing to be added by me!

Thanks!


5 posted on 11/17/2008 11:04:42 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Please add my nom de plume. Many thanks.


6 posted on 11/17/2008 11:10:33 AM PST by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

Li’l Jemmy ping!


7 posted on 11/17/2008 11:16:04 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell; 13 Feb. 1829; Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html

8 posted on 11/17/2008 11:22:03 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

I’d like to be on your list.
Thanks.


9 posted on 11/17/2008 11:26:30 AM PST by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

On another thread I was trying to quote from Franlin’s speech to “The Federal Convention” of 1787 but my link to it through patriotpost.com doesn’t work because they are redoing their site. Do you have a link?


10 posted on 11/17/2008 11:38:18 AM PST by fella (.He that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough." Pv.28:19')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

There’s another Madison quote about ‘widows and orphans’ from the Revolutionary War. Wonder if you have a link to that one. iirc, Davey Crockett invoked the quote after the War between the States, for the same reason.

Please add me to the list. Thanks.


11 posted on 11/17/2008 12:48:02 PM PST by Kent C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

President Madison was quite the prophet was he not?


12 posted on 11/17/2008 1:12:28 PM PST by zeugma (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

This is the kind of material that attracted me to FR back in 2000. Then we elected a Republican president and limited government became passe. Maybe it will become in vogue again.


13 posted on 11/17/2008 1:18:38 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fella
This one?

-----

Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

14 posted on 11/17/2008 2:01:41 PM PST by Loud Mime (CHANGE: Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
Madison! My favorite Founder!

-----

Conscience is the most sacred of all property.
-- James Madison, National Gazette, March 29, 1792,

In 1794, during debate on a bill that would appropriate $15,000 for French refugees from San Domingo, James Madison, then a representative from Virginia said:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

------

In January 1800, the entire House went to the state legislature of Virginia. Both Virginia and Kentucky had petitioned the new federal government that the recent Alien and Sedition Act was unconstitutional. Madison wrote the report James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that 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."
(snip)
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.

15 posted on 11/17/2008 2:08:36 PM PST by MamaTexan (* I am not an administrative, political, legal, corporate or collective entity *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fella

You may like this book; I did!

16 posted on 11/17/2008 2:12:00 PM PST by Loud Mime (CHANGE: Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
Excellent stuff!

But you know that a contrarian(Progressive Democrat) will read the exact same words and come to the contrary opinion, diametrically opposed to how I read it.

I have seen two sides use the exact same scripture to argue two sides of an issue.

Keep on educating us.

Regards
Bonehead

17 posted on 11/17/2008 3:35:45 PM PST by BoneHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BoneHead

I was reading one such argument earlier today. I have fun when discussing these points with these sophists. But, there is one thing that I have learned; never do it on the internet. Do it in person.

Madison had a foundation to all his writings, that he believed in God. Therefore, government should be limited. Those who do not believe in God see government as their god, therefore wish to give it all powers possible, including its educating children about their god.

A question I pose to liberals is this: What is the highest form of authority you recognize? That answer is their religion.


18 posted on 11/17/2008 4:17:30 PM PST by Loud Mime (CHANGE: Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Madison was a small man with a small voice, yet possessed the knowledge of many and the virtue of a man of true aim.

Because of the presentation, he would never become popular in today’s celebrity politics. Looks and presentation account for more than content and virtue. We have inverted our search criteria.


19 posted on 11/17/2008 4:21:21 PM PST by Loud Mime (CHANGE: Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
Good evening. Thank you for the ping.

Please pardon my rant. I have no intelligent comment to make, just a prediction. In one hundred and twenty days, after 0bama is sworn in, the Founding Fathers will be spinning in their graves.

I hate making these kinds of predictions, but it is now written...I hope I am wrong.

5.56mm

20 posted on 11/17/2008 5:35:03 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

They’re not spinning....they are screaming at us from beyond.


21 posted on 11/17/2008 8:51:44 PM PST by Loud Mime (Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
I haven't seen that book but the Franklin speech I wanted to quote was the one he made on the second of June 1787 that was in opposition to executive salaries. I have it in my “Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates”. A great book that when paired with “The Federalist Papers” gives you great insight into what the founders were thinking and how we have gotten to where we are today.

Unfortunately many of the evils that we overthrew back then have been reimposed on us by our own elected while we neglected to over see them because trusted our press to inform us. When they claimed to be unbiased we trusted them, all the while they were getting into bed with those elected and they have formed a partnership whose goal, it appears, is to enslave us all through force of laws designed to take away our natural rights as spelled out in the supposedly unalterable amendments.

22 posted on 11/17/2008 11:45:44 PM PST by fella (.He that followeth after vain persons shall have poverty enough." Pv.28:19')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

ping


23 posted on 11/19/2008 7:30:07 AM PST by Loud Mime (Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TR Jeffersonian

ping


24 posted on 11/19/2008 7:31:08 AM PST by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
Because of the presentation, he would never become popular in today’s celebrity politics. Looks and presentation account for more than content and virtue. We have inverted our search criteria.

'Celebrity Politics', what an apt phrase! I agree with your post wholeheartedly.

Here's another Madison favorite of mine-

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. James Madison - Letter to W. T. Barry, August 4, 1822

25 posted on 11/19/2008 10:18:50 AM PST by MamaTexan (* I am not an administrative, political, legal, corporate or collective entity *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; Loud Mime
These are not from Madison but are fitting never-the-less.

No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775

Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.

John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, 1776

26 posted on 11/20/2008 5:31:15 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

Every time I read Samuel Adams I wish I could join him at a pub for some conversation; he had a great mind.

It is sad that our government is now showing all the signs that the founders warned us about. If they saw the debates on same-sex marriage they would be horrified. Even they did not foresee such a perverted event.


27 posted on 11/20/2008 5:42:46 AM PST by Loud Mime (Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

If they could speak to us directly, what do you suppose those great men would say to us about now?


28 posted on 11/20/2008 5:53:32 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

That’s easy.

1) Go back to the basics

2) Get off your ass and get to work.

I’m a frequent letter-writer and have a website (now undergoing remake) that’s political in nature. All of these efforts start from the basics: our Constitution.


29 posted on 11/20/2008 8:19:24 AM PST by Loud Mime (Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Beautiful words. All the Founders were master wordsmiths, but they lived in a time when the People knew what words like Liberty and Sovereignty meant.

IMHO, if you want to find the true meaning of the Constitution, you need to read the first of the 4 (or is it 5?) legal treaties written after ratification.

View of the Constitution of the United States
NOTE B.
OF THE SEVERAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
SOVEREIGNTY

As the sovereign power hath no limits to its authority, so hath the government of a state no rights, but such as are purely derivative, and limited; the union of the SOVEREIGNTY of a state with the GOVERNMENT, constitutes a state of USURPATION and absolute TYRANNY, over the PEOPLE.

[snip]

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.

30 posted on 11/20/2008 2:28:09 PM PST by MamaTexan (* I am not an administrative, political, legal, corporate or collective entity *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bigun; Loud Mime
If they could speak to us directly, what do you suppose those great men would say to us about now?

They wouldn't be asking us anything.

They would be to out of breath from smacking us upside our silly heads. :-)

31 posted on 11/20/2008 2:30:03 PM PST by MamaTexan (* I am not an administrative, political, legal, corporate or collective entity *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

LOL!

I strongly suspect you are correct!


32 posted on 11/20/2008 2:51:16 PM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
The highlighted Madison quote is the very essence of conservatism, and going forward should be the first principle of either the Republican Party or whatever new party arises to replace it.

Everything else is politically irrelevant.

33 posted on 11/20/2008 2:55:39 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word." -- Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Thanks for an EXCELLENT link!

It is a shame that there are so few these days who are the slightest bit interested in how our nation was created and what those who managed to get that done thought about what they had accomplished.


34 posted on 11/20/2008 2:56:00 PM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

A great link.....I’m looking at the main page and the library they are offering......


35 posted on 11/20/2008 3:03:52 PM PST by Loud Mime (Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

I have maintained for some time that the 17th Amendment allowed two sections of the legislature to be guided by greed and government growth. The State-appointed Senators were the guardians of the 10th Amendment. Once removed, the 10th lost its function, losing to the will of the popular senators who were willing to fund their re-election with benefits from the treasury.

What is conservative? Conservative is a belief in the other C-word: the Constitution. Madison stayed to the letter of the Constitution, something we do not see from any politician at present.


36 posted on 11/20/2008 3:09:05 PM PST by Loud Mime (Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime; Mr. Jeeves

The 17th amendment effectively cut one leg off of a three legged stool and we ALL know that two legged stools just do not work well.

The founder’s genius in creating our form of government has been subverted. They intended that the House would be the peoples house with it’s members directly elected by the people. The Senate was to be the house which represented the interests of the individual states and the executive was to ensure that the laws were faithfully executed.

Because of the 17th amendment the individual states are no longer represented and that is a HUGE problem!.


37 posted on 11/20/2008 5:32:03 PM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson