Posted on 01/22/2010 9:28:15 AM PST by paratrooper82
America, the Constitutional limitations on governmental power established by the people of this great country has worked to prevent Obama's socialist take over of this country. Our forefathers were genuis when it came to writing a document establishing a government with very limited powers, separation of powers, and keeping the majority of power in the hands of the American people!
In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the least powerful branch. The judiciary's independence from political interference by the legislature or the executive branch is protected in the Constitution by life tenure during good behavior and a guaranteed salary.
The Constitution divides legislative power in the Congress between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Both Houses must agree on proposed legislation before it becomes law.
Constitutional powers granted to the executive branch include - Oversight of federal agencies that implement laws passed by Congress (these agencies employ more than 4 million people). - Power as Commander in Chief of the armed forces - Power to make treaties, nominate judges to the federal judiciary, and appoint officers of the government, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate - Power to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes
A Bill of Rights A Bill of Rights as contained in the Amendments to the US Constitution, provides an admirable philosophical statement, for application in concrete situations, of the basis on which the power of legislatures and governments may be limited. A Bill of Rights places limitations on the powers of government and creates an area of freedom for individual action. The problem with the US Bill of Rights has been that after the New Deal, it was construed by judges who have re-interpreted its philosophical basis. The US Bill of Rights has provided some significant limitations on state power in the US. In the hey-day of American liberalism, if not for the Bill of Rights, there would have been far more interference with individual freedom, with the consequence that the US would be a less free place than it is today.
The basic problem with the proposed and rejected Murphy, Evans and Bowen Bills of Rights was that they did not limit government power. What provisions they contained for limiting power were cancelled out by provisions which enabled government organs to avoid the effect of these limitations. The limitations on power were rendered nugatory. These Bills were Bills of Rights in name only and were frauds perpetrated on the public. A Bill of Rights provides rights to individuals to protect themselves from the encroaching power of government. Not only did these Bills not contain effective provisions to limit government power, they provided means by which governments could extend and expand their power.
Yes America, the constitution worked and we are witness to this limitation on the power of the government in the Mass. election that brought Scott Brown to power, placing a limiation on this socialist administrations power and placed a check and balance on the abuse of pwoer in congress and the house of representatives!
Thank you America! Read and learn our Nations most valued document called the U.S. Constitution, there is a limitation on the powers provided to this government, even though they act like it does not!
Sorry to tell you that you're wrong... LOL...
[not that I ever believed them... :-) ...]
GOD BLESS AMERICA, LAND THAT I LOVE...... AND “POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”
How many times have we heard the O bum bum complain about the limitations the constitution has placed on him and his ilk? He once complained the U.S. Constitution was full of negative rights instead of positive rights and wanted the courts to change that so he and his other socialist could move forward with more power of government over the people!
Thank God our forefathers understood how government would demand more and more powers, give them an inch, they will take a mile!
One small success with the election of Brown.
But keep in mind, the screen door on the White House is still wide open to progressives and marxists.
In their arrogance they didn’t believe the people in Mass would actual elect a REPUBLICAN. consider it a setback to their agenda. but the commies will regroup and try other agendas to usurp the Constitution. To the progressives, all that matters is the end result of controlling us.
I fully expect after yesterdays Supreme Court decision striking down 1st Amendment restrictions on free speech, there will be a backlash against the court with some kind of legislation. Schumer is already conspiring with Obama to draft some kind of campaign finance law attempting to slide around the Constitution.
It’s ok to savor the small victory that has derailed the Health Control train. But keep your eye on the player with the ball.
First, Mass. elected a CONSERVATIVE to the US Senate seat. Second, the proposed legislation to over turn the supreme courts ruling yesterday still has to get through the US Senate where Scott Brown how sits and guess what, WON’T HAPPEN!
And we must keep ever-vigilant to be sure our representatives don’t forget who they work for.
Who said Scott Brown is a conservative?
Perhaps for Mass he is. But NEVER confuse the name Republican with Conservative.
Until Brown actually starts voting in the Senate, we really don’t know how he will vote. Remember, Mass is a very liberal state. It’s not like he is working for a majority of conservative interests in Mass.
Absolutely correct! Only we the people can drop the ball and allow the socialist to gain power again.
Those socialist who remain in power in this country, both
State and federal will also need to be removed from office and with teh election of Scott Brown to the Senate in Mass. proves they can be defeated all accross America if the American people come together and defeat them! Sometimes we all need to set aside our petty diferences for a common goal, defeating socialist who are destroying America!
Scott Brown ran his election on these conservative positions:
He was against Obama Care;
He believes water boarding is not torture;
He supports treating all terrorist as military combatants and will not be provided an attorney;
Fiscal responsibility;
Strong military, better Veteran benefits.
Until Scott Brown does the opposite, these are Conservative principles the last time I checked.
Amen and amen!
LOL. Thanks for the laugh.
You may think it is funny, but until people like you understand the limitations placed on government in the Constitution, you will continue to allow these socialist to run roughshod over you. Now that is funny!
There’s a better term......”Give them an inch and they’ll think they are a ruler.”
US History books never tell us the history of how those “negative rights,” (as President Obama calls them.) Most were wrested from the King of England over centuries. The colonists certainly knew that history and fought to secure their hard won inheritance of the “Rights of Englishmen.” It was the denial of those rights - such as taxation without representation, which placed them in a less than freeman status, that was a huge ideological impetus to break away from England and assert these rights for themselves.
For instance, the Magna Carta or “Great Charter of the Liberties of England” of 1215 declared and enacted that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseized of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1400/magna.htm
The “Petition of Right” in 1621 was the first major English constitutional document since the Magna Carta, declaring the fundamental right of Englishmen as positive law. In four sections, the petition addressed limits on royal powers as established in long-standing custom: (1) No person should be required to pay a tax or benevolence without parliamentary approval; (2) No person should be imprisoned without cause being shown, with the royal command not to be sufficient cause; (3) No troops should be quartered in private homes without the consent of and compensation to their owners; and (4) The crown should issue no commissions for proceedings by martial law. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1601-1650/england/por.htm
The “Declaration of Rights” of 1689 claimed restoration of practices based on the constitution of 1641. The Declaration denied the “pretended” right of the king to suspend laws. It implemented a new coronation oath binding the sovereign to govern according to acts of Parliament. The Declaration also stated:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
(1) All (kings) prerogative courts were declared illegal; (2) Levying taxes or enforced payments to the crown without parliamentary consent was declared illegal; (3) Everyone was recognized as having the right to petition the Crown; (4) The King was prohibited from maintaining a standing army without Parliamentary consent; (5) It was declared lawful to keep and bear arms; (6) The election of members of the Parliament was to be free of coercion by the government; (7) Freedom of debate in Parliament was guaranteed; (8) Excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment was prohibited; (9) Juries were to be empaneled and returned in every trial; (10) It was established that the Parliament must be frequently convened; and (11) The judiciary became independent, not serving at the pleasure of the Crown but permanently on “good behavior.”
The Act of Habeas Corpus of 1679 secured the right to know within a certain number of days why a prisoner was being detained/imprisoned. http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm
The colonists claimed the rights of Englishmen. Justice Story comments that: “In the charters, under which all these colonies were settled, with a single exception, [That of Pennsylvania, 1 Grahame’s Hist. 41, note; 1 Chalm. Annals, 14,15, 639, 640,658; 2 Wilson’s Law Lect. 48, 49.] there is, as has been already seen, an express declaration, that all subjects and their children inhabiting therein shall be deemed natural born subjects, and shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof; and that the laws of England, so far as they are applicable, shall be in force there; and no laws shall be made, which are repugnant to, but as near as may be conveniently, shall conform to the laws of England.”
...”It is not, therefore, without strong reason, that it has been said, that ‘the colonists, continuing as much subjects in the new establishment, where they had freely placed themselves, [with the consent of the crown,] as they had been in the old, carried with them their birthright, the laws of their country; because the customs of a free people are a part of their liberty’; and that ‘the jurisprudence of England became that of the colonies, so far as it was applicable to the situation, at which they had newly arrived, because they were Englishmen residing within a distant territory of the empire.’”
“And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been that the common law is our birthright and inheritance and that our ancestors brought hither with them Upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole Structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law...”
“How differently did the Congress of 1774 think? They unanimously resolved, ‘That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.’ They further resolved, ‘that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have by experience respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.’ They also resolved, that their ancestors at the time of their emigration were ‘entitled’ (not to the rights of men, of expatriated men, but) ‘to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England.” [Journal of Congress, Declaration of Rights of the Colonies, Oct. 14, 1774, p. 27 to 31.]”
There are many, many incremental steps between these English mile posts where freedom was secured. The Bill of Rights did not just spring forth as an idea of the Founders. The Progressives want to take back the powers of what English freemen wrested from the Royal Government. It is so important that we understand where we came from if we are to prevent this and remain free men.
The Constitution indeed limits the power of government.
But our problem today is that the sitting government in Washington is bypassing some of those limits. The most egregious example, IMHO, is how they are abusing the Commerce Clause. (There are other abuses, though.)
Instead of promoting commerce between the several states, Washington uses the Commerce Clause to micro-manage all business in the United States. Where did they get the power to impose Cash for Clunkers on us? What enumerated power lets them even consider the abominable health care reform bill, or cap-and-trade? Not just no but HELL NO!
Unfortunately, the only “enforcement mechanism” for keeping Washington within the limitations imposed by the Constitution are the governments of the several states and they are only now beginning to stir. If not them, then we the people must impose order where little now exists. And that isn’t going to be easy!
Scott Brown (of course I voted for him, here in Massachusetts!) is a good start but we need an awful lot more like him, then we need to make sure they vote correctly to at least START getting this awful genie back into its bottle.
The Constitution is splendid but it needs to be enforced. HARSHLY enforced!
Laughable. As El Rushbo says, don't judge the intentions; judge the results. 200+ years of constant expansion of power, in predictabled ways, and by predictable means. you will continue to allow these socialist to run roughshod over you. Now that is funny!
A lot happened before my time that I can't be blamed for. I'm dealing with the USA as I found it, just like everybody else.
The truth is the Constitution contains a few gaping loopholes, well worn over these last 200 years. It also contains several new amendments, most of them bad. And it includes 200 YEARS of SCOTUS precedents that are now part of supreme law. Article 3 is one of the biggest bungles in the Constitution, if not THE biggest bungle. Hamilton, by the way, liked it like that.
Expansion of national power via the commerce clause has been going on since the early 1800s. And if you’ve read CJ Roberts’ opinion in the recent campaign finance case, where he writes at length about the judicial application of stare decesis, you’ll see that it’s an evolution that can only be reversed by amendment. The court’s opinions become supreme law over time. The judicial branch favors stability and predictability over correctness as a matter of principle. In other words, a long standing bad decision sticks once it becomes long standing.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere- or let the decision stand is a carryover from English common law. It had its roots in Saxon (Danish) Law, where free men participated in the local “tun” (town) assembly or moot. The moot’s principle function was judicial. Each tun sent its reeve (sheriff) and four best men to serve at the higher level court - the “hundred.”
The law was ancient, unwritten, unlegislated and considered as once given (by God) and unchangeable. It was passed down orally in the form of judgments or “dooms.” Each moot had a group of older “doomsmen” who remembered and could declare the law. King Alfred the Great’s Book of Dooms, attempted to compile and reconcile this customary oral law, blended with Mosaic/Christian principles.
In 1190, Edward 1 accepted that any right continuously exercised since the coronation of Richard I was valid. Any legal precedent established after that date which has not been amended or over-ruled may be pleaded in modern English court.
Knowledge of the law was subsequently acquired by a study of the decisions that illustrated how it was applied. (Remember it was considered God given and unchangeable.)For more than three centuries, law was learned through the study of annual law reports of case law or “Year Books,” whose authority was recognized by the judges. This is where the principle of stare decisis came from. Each decision would essentially have a pedigree that carried back to the organic law established by God for free men - respecting their rights and all that entails. The liberties of Englishmen were encapsulated in the slow-growing custom declared by juries of free men who gave their verdicts case by case in open court. It was essentially an unwritten Bill of Rights that we inherited when we accepted the legacy of the English Common Law.
Stare decisis in our Supreme Court promotes a consistency with the same prinicples of law that were applied in the early days of the Republic. When they bend logically, you can usually see that stretch or inconsistency.
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.