The Framers of the Constitution created a system of government that delineated the powers horizontally between the three branches of the new General government so that no one branch could become tyrannical. That design intentionally made it difficult to “get things done.” The new system also delineated powers vertically between the General government, the State governments, and the People. The power of the new General government was restricted by giving it only a handful of enumerated powers, with all other powers lying with the ultimate sovereigns….the People and their elected State representatives.
From the very beginning when the new Constitution was but a twinkle in Madison’s eye, there were those, including Madison, who wanted the new General government to have veto power over all State actions. All such suggestions went down in flames however, because those with better sense had not forgotten the reason behind the whole War of Independence thing……tyranny! The People were to be the deciders-in-chief when it came to self-governance, not another King George.
It is extremely important to know the thoughts that went into framing the Constitution, but it is even more important to understand what the Ratifiers were thinking, because creating an idea, the Constitution, was a much simpler proposition than actually implementing the idea. And because of this the Constitution was not guaranteed ratification…it was uncertain at best.
There were many complaints that various clauses would be widely interpreted in order to expand the power of the new General government, in effect giving it unlimited power over time. The Framers and Ratifiers understood human nature much better than the policy makers of today can ever dream of understanding. Some of the clauses that drew great skepticism were the General Welfare, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy, and those clauses have been widely abused by politicians and Judges…….were the Founders prescient or what?
Many wanted a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution before its ratification in order to protect the People from the tyrannies that King George visited upon them. Those opposed to a Bill of Rights correctly stated that the new General government had only the authorities listed in the Constitution and that a Bill of Rights was not needed, and that it would actually be harmful to list certain protections because it would infer that the new General government had power over all other things not listed.
Much debate went into creating the Bill of Rights until the final product ended with ten amendments. The main argument against ratifying the Constitution, a tyrannical General government, was addressed in the two most important amendments…the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, aka, the ignored amendments.
The Ninth Amendment which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment removed the inferred power theory by making it clear that just because certain rights and protections were listed in the Bill of Rights, the General government did not have the authority to act on things not listed. It isn’t as difficult to understand this amendment as those who want to ignore this amendment want us to believe. It was a grave restriction on federal power.
The Tenth Amendment reads: 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. This amendment was added to make it clear that the new General government had only those authorities listed in the Constitution.
An amendment process was provided in the Constitution which made it a living breathing document. However, this amendment process was also intentionally made very difficult by demanding that changes to the Nation’s governing document should receive overwhelming support. This amendment process, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were the roadblocks standing squarely in the way of tyranny. Unfortunately, the Constitution is merely ink on parchment which requires the good faith of those who take a solemn oath to uphold and defend it, good faith which has been in rare existence just as the Founders had feared.
Now, those with tyrannical impulses had to determine a way usurp those pesky little roadblocks. Well first, in the case of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, you just ignore them, and claim they are too difficult to understand. In the case of the Article V amendment process, you simply use a piecemeal and subdued unconstitutional amendment process known as constitutional case law.
Case law is the process of judges reviewing previous cases to glean information that may help resolve the case at hand, and also to hopefully provide regularity in decision making. The problem with constitutional case law in our case is that since the beginning it has been one lie laid upon another, altering the written Constitution step by step, with the purpose of consolidating power at the national level. This has all but eliminated the entire purpose of the Constitution, making it nearly irrelevant. Case law is fine for all law not pertaining to the Constitution, but all cases pertaining to the Constitution should be weighed against the Constitution for it is the ultimate case law and precedent.
These usurpations are perpetrated largely by judges who read between the lines, under the lines, on the back of the document by spreading a little lemon juice and huffing warm breath on it, who then declare that something new has been found that clearly doesn’t exist. The Constitution really should receive Geneva Convention protections for the torture it has had to endure in order for it to admit to things that clearly do not exist.
The result of this has been that Presidents, Congress’ and bureaucrats believe there is no limit to their authorities……just visualize something in the Constitution that isn’t there, then do it. I remember a few years ago when Pete Stark, a California Representative said that the Federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants. Have you listened to the democrat candidates lately? The Constitutional ignorance of all politicians is disheartening, but the ignorance of the democrat candidates is frightening. I’m sure the Founders and Ratifiers have knots on their foreheads from trying to sit up in their graves at the utterances of the democrat candidates.
Constitutional lawyers, scholars and the like want everyone else to believe that the Constitution is too difficult for us simple minded peons to understand. They think in deference to their exalted knowledge that we should submit and leave our freedom in their hands, but actually it is they who do not understand. They have spent so much time immersing themselves in professorial discussions about the tangled maze of case law, of Dis vs Dat or Ding vs Dong, that they simply do not understand or worse yet ignore history. Understanding the Constitution is simple….understand history. If you know history, you will know the Constitution, and you will know that those who claim to know by virtue of their lengthy and useless education, really don’t know.