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. 

[Native Born Citizen]

Or perhaps they wanted a republic of nations under a strong national government. Indicators exists that our Founding Fathers were not unanimous on their motivations.

[Native Born Citizen]

In other words, we agree that the interpretation is reasonable and constitutional, even though you argue that some did consider them unconstitutional.

See how progressive the Republic was?

[Native Born Citizen]

Socialist Democracy is not a republican form of government.

There we disagree. I'd argue that progressive policies are a requirement for a true Republic.

Strange how we always seem to end up at that strange "S" word isn't it?

Not really, it is a somewhat fascination with a concept which will never become really relevant, and yet some believe it to be the savior of that which it would destroy, our Constitution. Other than a few voices, the "S" word has remained of little real relevance, but it does make some people feel good talking about. Who am I to object to people feeling good?

[Native Born Citizen]

How can the constitution promise one thing and then our elected representatives do not uphold the document that they swore an oath to uphold?

You are now conflating fact with assertion. You are claiming that social democracy cannot uphold the Constitution. I'd argue that it can do so better than some other interpretations. Until you can accept that reasonable people can disagree about the constitutionality of the acts of our representatives, we will continue to fail to communicate properly.

Your viewpoint has been tarnished by the koolaid that you continue to drink.

I may suggest that you ponder the irony of your claims. Have another sip my friend.

[Native Born Citizen]

One of them was the word "expressly" being taken out of the 10th amendment.

And yet the proceeded to sign. Interesting.

[David Farrar]

When the word "expressly" was taken out of the 10th, would you then consider it most closely reflecting l'Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, expressly as it relates to "liberty", as an unalienable right?

ex animo

davidfarrar 

[Native Born Citizen]

"plotting". I find it fascinating how you can make that statement and not realize that you are arguing against your own position. Joe has gone even further in that context and refers to the Constitution as a fake. 

Perhaps our Founding Fathers had a different vision for our Nation than some had thought? This is the foundation of my argument that our Founding Fathers may very well have been progressives, in favor of a strong national government, and not a nation loosely bound confederacy of states? Was that the true revolution?

[Native Born Citizen]

The juxtaposition with Joe's essay that the "national government replaced a working Federal government as it was designed to do" seems to indicate that Joe and I are onto a similar thread. Although Joe sees these actions as treacherous, while I see them as beneficial to the well being of our Nation.

Was the true revolution fought 200+ years ago and settled in favor of a strong National Government?

Joe harps away about statutes and how evil they are as they are 'man made' law, adds some religious terms of devil worshippers, but in the end, he describes a system which has existed since the signing of our Constitution. 

I find that encouraging.

So the question is: When people want to return to the Republic of our Founders, what do they want to return to exactly?

[Joe]

"Joe harps..."

Please, anyone, do not allow this character assassin to continue this libel without any effort on anyone's part to challenge the libelous words with some light of truth.

Please.

The difference between a Federal design, which does work whenever people care to use it, and a so called "National Government," is the night and day difference between rule of law and rule by man.

In the following book written on the topic of this information we discuss now is an explanation of how a Federal government is designed to work as a free market government service provided by people for people, and people decide if they want to pay into it, or not pay into it, based upon their free use of their power over their individual moral conscience.

Here is the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resol...

Here is the explanation of how a Federal (free market) government is designed to work:

Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option.

Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

The true founders were Federalists and they were against the so called Nationalist (Monarchy or Monopoly) Consolidation and the true founders like George Mason who refused to sign the Constitution, explained in no uncertain terms precisely what the criminals were doing and what would happen as a result of allowing that crime to go unchallenged. The true founders tended to begin their Constitutions with Bills of Rights, not leave those Declarations of Independence out of their true Constitutions.

George Mason, one who refused to sign the false Constitution is credited with the force behind the Bill of Rights that include the understanding that no one is punished lawfully without a Grand Jury presentment and a trial by jury according to the common law.

The Monarchist Monopolists were playing the something for nothing game, or zero sum game, or central banking fraud covering up the direct or excise tax exertion racket game. That is also explained will in that book linked above:

But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

 To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.

If you do not understand the importance of the so called Shays's Rebellion as it sparked the move to end the working Federation, get Generalissimo Washington dusted off and out of retirement, then you are lacking that understanding.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty

http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Co...

George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html

Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation

The so called Nationalists (hiding behind false Federalist Party advertising) taught the communists how to play the zero sum something for nothing game, not the other way around, for those who are parroting the lies that intend to divide and conquer roughly half the world (so called capitalists) against roughly half the other side or the word (so called socialists) and your focus is focused on the enemy without, those so called communists, or those so called socialists, as those on that side are playing the same fraudulent extortion with a different false flag.

"...he describes a system which has existed since the signing of our Constitution..."

I am a man, I am not a legal fiction created by character assassins who create a false version of me, a harpy, or whatever lie is told by a character assassin intending to create a false version of me, and then after having created that Man of Straw, this character assassin falsely claims that I am that Man of Straw, that Harpy, or whatever he, or she, or it may invent as a Man of Straw, next time that character assassin reaches again into his, or her, or its bag of lies.

The organically (grass roots, or spontaneously) created Federation worked between 1776 and 1787 as the spontaneously assembled Continental Congress working as a Federal government wrote that Declaration of Independence, while those people in those Republics formed their independent States with their own Bills of Rights and their own Constitutions.

After the Con Con Con Job of 1787 that working federation was covered up with a false flag, false front, false version of the working Federation. The Bill of Rights offers the people a remedy from that thin, and thinning, falsehood.

That is what my viewpoint offers and that is not the viewpoint offered by the inventor and employer of Libel against me on this Forum.

So the question is: When people want to return to the Republic of our Founders, what do they want to return to exactly?

One example:

Move forward with due process:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/

No longer settle for false due process (too little, too late):

http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/Assassination%20Tr...

That is simple in any eyes where those eyes know intimately that their accusations fall on deaf ears.

The libeler on this forum is working the game of character assassination against me. That is factual. What do the people do about it?

That which works on the local level reflects that which works on the county level, the state level, and the federal level because that is precisely what the people allow, and that is what the people invest into, knowingly, or under some demonic form of Stockholm Syndrome, or manufactured consent, created and maintained by sociopaths, psychopaths, and their well paid sycophants, paid out of the FUND of stolen loot.

[Native Born Citizen]

"Joe harps..."

Please, anyone, do not allow this character assassin to continue this libel without any effort on anyone's part to challenge the libelous words with some light of truth.

It was meant as a compliment. 

  to dwell on or recur to a subject tiresomely or monotonously —usually used with on

[Joe]

Harpy:

a rapacious monster described as having a woman's head and body and a bird's wings and claws or depicted as a bird of prey with a woman's face.

Do not continue this character assassination routine whereby your claims of what is said by me are in any way my actual words. There is a feature that works well enough to credit me with the words I offer.

I do not need your twisted versions of what I say to be in any way accountable to me.

As soon as the game played is exposed is the moment the lies no longer have any power. So you can save all your twists of words for whoever you think will be subjected to those twists, and every single time your twists of words appear to me as such, there will be a defense against such libel.

It matters not to me what you are, or who you are, as the messages constitute the libel, and the cause for my actions in defense.

[Native Born Citizen]

The true founders were Federalists and they were against the so called Nationalist (Monarchy or Monopoly) Consolidation and the true founders like George Mason who refused to sign the Constitution, The true founders tended to begin their Constitutions with Bills of Rights, not leave those Declarations of Independence out of their true Constitutions.

One person's 'true founders' are another person's villain. Such is the problem with history. It seems that a less visible revolution was fought in those days and some Founders prevailed over others. Such is the power of democracy, even when designing the foundations for a Republic.

Thanks for pointing out parts of history with which I was not familiar. I feel even more encouraged in my position that the Founders of our Nation who signed our Constitution, had a rather progressive vision for our Nation.