Powers Not Delegated Do Not Exist

[Keith Broaders]

According to the words of Thomas Jefferson the government of the United States was created to be the servant of the states and the people. The authority of the government comes from the consent of the governed, not the consent of bankers. The power of the national government was limited and well defined in order to prevent its abuse of power. Any power or authority not specifically granted in the Constitution was to be prohibited.

The authors of the Constitution knew that a strong central government would be potentially very dangerous if it had the power to regulate and discipline itself. They understood that unless the government was restrained, the government would become our master and we would become its slaves.

Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were afraid that granting too much power to Congress would render the states and the people powerless to prevent the abuse of power by those elected to be our servants.

The Constitution was written to constrain the government. If it had the power to write the rules to govern their own behavior it would like allowing Al Capone to determine the fate of Bonnie and Clyde.

The Constitution is like a recipe that needs to be followed exactly. If you add or subtract from it you will reap tyranny instead of liberty.

When making a batch of chocolate cookies, would you allow the baker to replace the sugar with garlic and the eggs with vinegar?

When we allow Congress to assume powers not delegated to them in the Constitution, we give them the power to abuse us. Remember that powers not specifically granted to the government of the United States are reserved to the states and to the people.

A liberal or loose interpretation of the Constitution paves the way for bankers and the financial institutions to usurp the power that rightfully belongs to the people.

As the creator of our government our founders wrote a rule book for our governmental employees. This rule book known as the Constitution defines what the employees of the government can do. Any action taken by Congress that is not enumerated is unconstitutional.

Congress has crossed the line on many occasions and done things that they felt were necessary and proper. This progressive mindset has brought us the National Bank, the progressive Income Tax, the Federal Reserve and the IRS and undeclared wars. 

[Joe]

"The Constitution was written to govern the government and if it had the power to write the rules to govern their own behavior it would like allowing Al Capone to sit on the jury to determine the guilt or innocence of Bonnie and Clyde."

My understanding is such that so long as Al Capone, Bonnie, and Clyde were not currently outside the law (offered redemption and not accepting redemption) then they would be competent to sit on the jury.

I do not know if Al Capone, Bonnie, and Clyde were just as guilty as the criminals who wanted them dead, without common law trial by jury, or not, but as far as I do know Bonnie and Clyde were inspired to take Federal Reserve Notes out of criminal banks, and those who secured and protected those criminal banks ended up putting a lot of bullet holes in Bonnie and Clyde, no trial, and why is that?

The analogy is not working for me.

Trial by jury can involve randomly picking (by lot) the 12 jurists that may, or may not, include a few people who have guilty minds of the sort and type that they, on their own volition, or colluding with fellows of like minds, conspire to defend the guilty from discovery of the truth and therefore their introduction into the jury is bound, because they are not discovered, to acquit guilty people in cases where random selection fails as a means by which the whole country of good people are represented in that jury where there is the taint of evil in it.

So 12 people are randomly selected and what is found in that make up of that jury?

1. Al Capone

2. Robin Hood

3. Jesse James

4. Daniel Shays

5. Patrick Henry

6. George Masson

7. Bonnie

8. Clyde

9. You

10. Me

11. Jesus

12. God

I can't rule out the idea that God takes special interest in this specific trial, so I added that power in an individual form to this exercise in discussion of vital matters that so dearly affect or temporal salvation.

Al Capone, going by the Hollywood examples, could be quickly discovered by anyone who cares to know, as a psychopath or sociopath as that jurist goes around the round table crushing skulls in of the jurists who do not agree with Al Capone's versions of right and wrong.

Robin Hood shows up, or someone embodying that legendary soul, who fought against the King's version of a Sheriff, as if Robin Hood were, in point of fact, a Sheriff elected by the people, to represent the people as a whole, not representing only the King, and the King's version of right and wrong, to be obeyed without question.

Skipping past Jesse James, moving to Daniel Shays, and there is in that example of a potential jurist randomly picked to find the facts in any case where the law of the land is entertained as a viable option, was an example of someone twice convicted, by so called Kings, or so called authorities, of going outside the law, as a rebel, or as an insurgent, or as a terrorist, or as one who fails to obey the order to pay whatever charge is claimed to be owed to said authority by said terrorist. The first time was a King in England making the claim, and the second time a false authority in Massachusetts, or two false authorities, or a whole cabal of false authorities, were making, and enforcing such claims.

My effort here is specific to a specific form of due process that is not perfect by any means because the process depends upon moral understanding and reason embodied in actual people picked randomly from a hat, as absurd as that may sound to some, to others it reasons out well compared to the competition that includes absolute dictatorship, also known as tyranny, also known as central banking.

Actually, the analogy does work the more I think about it, which is often times not easy to do, not without some intense effort on my part.

[Native Born Citizen]

Also, unfortunately, the Tenth Amendment was largely emasculated by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Darby Lumber (1941), when it branded it, ten percent of the Bill of Rights, as nothing more than a "truism" that the Founders didn't really mean. 

Perhaps a proper citation of what they did say would be helpful? Yes, I understand why some people may object to minimum wage requirements, even though its benefits seems to outweigh its cost significantly. It restores part of the balance of power between supply and demand.

Such as

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§ 1907-1908.

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 14 U. S. 324, 14 U. S. 325; McCulloch v. Maryland, supra,17 U. S. 405, 17 U. S. 406; Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S.Appx 697, 705; Lottery Case, supra; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, supra,193 U. S. 344-345; Everard's Breweries v. Day, supra,265 U. S. 558; United States v. Sprague,282 U. S. 716, 282 U. S. 733; see United States v. The Brigantine William, 28 Fed.Cas. No. 16,700, p. 622. Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion, they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited. See also Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority,297 U. S. 288, 297 U. S. 330-331; Wright v. Union Central Ins. Co.,304 U. S. 502, 304 U. S. 516.

[Native Born Citizen]

All of the agencies like EPA, transportation, education. . . . that are run by political appointees who make "rules" and "regulations" that have the same force as a law passed by Congress and Signed by the President have caused us much in treasure and jobs.

Well, yes, that's part of the executive branch who implements the laws. To make the sweeping claims that they have caused us much in treasure and jobs is lacking in evidence.

The President IS doing his job as part of the executive.

[The president] shall appoint .. [and] all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Do you want to remove a complete branch of our government and leave it just to the President to run? 

For example the EPA

In 1970, President Richard Nixon proposed an executive reorganization that would consolidate many of the federal government's environmental responsibilities under one agency, a new Environmental Protection Agency. That reorganization proposal was reviewed and passed by the House and Senate.^[10] 

and

The EPA began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. See the page Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act for further information.

What is the clean air act?

The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the public from airborne contaminantsknown to be hazardous to human health.

So we see clear delegation of powers. What's wrong with that? Constitutionally speaking the executive (president) is delegating some of his authority to others under our Statutes.

[Native Born Citizen]

Cool, I hope you are right. But of course, still no evidence of any meaningful voter fraud.

[David Farrar]

There's a very good discussion of this very point over at Free Republic, entitled: "Federalism: Yesterday and Today
A Publius Essay | 20 October 2014 | Publius 

Posted on 10/20/2014 2:48:04 PM by Publius

Introduction

Federalism, or States’ Rights, has a long and honored history. To define terms, Federalism involves the assignment of powers between the entities that make up a federation and the federal authority created by those entities to act on behalf of that federation. In the United States Constitution, the people delegated certain enumerated powers to the federal government for the sake of operating a federated union.

Of course the "Nationalist" see the supremacy of Article VI, Clause 2 (i.e.,  The Supremacy Clause) trumping the 10th Amendment, all because the Congress refused to support the inclusion of the word "expressly" into the 10th amendment.

"The 10th Amendment was put in place to insure that the federal government would never assume powers not delegated to it. It 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.” It does not say, “The powers not expressly delegated...” When House Speaker James Madison introduced his proposed Bill of Rights to Congress in 1789, there was strenuous debate on the word “expressly”, and Congress rejected it."

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Native Born Citizen]

Yes, Madison and Hamilton have seen their disagreements which in later days has resulted in disagreements about the necessary of proper clause.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Wikipedia helps understand:

The draft Necessary and Proper Clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution's ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a "dead letter". At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.^[3]

At the moment the prevailing interpretation appears to be the more open ended one. Dropping 'expressly' further makes the argument against harder. Thanks for sharing that bit of knowledge.

[Native Born Citizen]

Please note that there are many things that come to us in the Constitution prior telling us that they can do anything that is "necessary and proper". These are those things:

That's a valid position and there has been arguments for and against both kind of interpretations, and in the end one or the other may win in court, for some time at least.

Which is why I find it hard to accept that one side or the other has a claim to being the 'true republic' as our founding fathers themselves were not unanimous either. Which is why I am raising the argument that a progressive approach to our Constitution can equally be argued to be 'republican' in its foundation.

Once we accept such possibilities, many of our differences may disappear. I personally believe that a broader interpretation is more logical, since even the Founding fathers must have been aware that they could not possibly have foreseen all areas in which our Government would become involved.

Bond v US is not going to address this, but it may address some peripheral issues.

SCOTUS decided the case already

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 2, 2014. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Justice Thomas joined, and Justice Alito joined as to Part I. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Scalia joined, and which Justice Alito joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgement.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf

Its impact on the meaning of the clause appears to be minimal.

[Native Born Citizen]

I again say that if the N&P clause is to do anything that they want at anytime, then the entire Section 8 is un-needed except that one sentence. That would amount to negating the rest of the document since all laws are necessary and proper in the minds of those that make them.

Ah but who is saying that it can be used to do anything they want. So we agree, that does not make sense. But it is also not logical that the powers remain restricted to an itemized few either.

[David Farrar]

Perhaps we need to re-address this point with the intention of re-inserting the word "expressly" back into the 10th Amendment via an Article V convention, as Madison had suggested? 

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Native Born Citizen]

Perhaps we need to re-address this point with the intention of re-inserting the word "expressly" back into the 10th Amendment via an Article V convention, as Madison had suggested? 

Opening up a can of worms. Since we may very well see the opposite happen ;-)

[Native Born Citizen]

Realist.

Think about it for a moment.

[David Farrar]

Not likely due to the majority of Republican state legislatures being at 27 before the Nov, 20124 med-term elections.

ex animo

davidfarrar