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]

The people of the United States of America are not a beehive that acts in unison as a collective.

That's why we have government.

People in the US used to take care of each other - before welfare, afdc, food stamps, and all the rest of the socialist programs. 

And when they failed to do so, our Government took over. After all, who wants to be enslaved by those who give you handouts? Socialist? No way, socialist programs would go way further. Progressive? Perhaps.

Progressives and the Republic, quite a lovely vision. Jefferson and others in favor of a progressive tax. Did you even realize this? Wow, are founding fathers, in spite of their short comings, appear to have been quite the visionaries.

[Joe]

What got us here?

Three links may answer the question to your satisfaction. I can offer the links, and then offer a summary.

The step by step progress from rule by man to rule by la law to rule by man (despotism or simply organized crime, or also knowable as fraudulent extortion) is played out well in these three links.

1. The flow of power:

http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed26/26225.pdf

2. That flow of power happening after the Revolutionary War but before the fraudulent extortionists took over a working federation in 1787:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY

3. The name of the false game is Monopoly and the cost on productive capacity is explained:

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

We got here on the lie that people can get something for nothing and then investors pay into that FUND all the while their lives, their very souls, are sucked out and used to suck out more.

[Native Born Citizen]

2. That flow of power happening after the Revolutionary War but before the fraudulent extortionists took over a working federation in 1787:

Oh my such a poor loser... And yet we live under their constitution. What a tough reality... Now what?

[Joe]

"Oh my such a poor loser..."

That is character assassination. On most forums there are two types generally. There are those who promote character assassination by choosing to target members and then publish words intending to assassinate the targeted members character, and there are also those who then "jump on the band wagon," to also target and assassinate the member who was targeted for assassination by the original one who targets the member for assassination. Then there are those who do nothing about the targeting of members for character assassination, and these are members who are all on the same side.

On the other side are those who care enough to accurately call a spade a spade, to then have in the bright light of day the actual, real, character assassin shown in the spot light as the character assassin, known to be one because of the fact that the character assassin does, in fact, pick members out as targets, and then in fact the assassin sets in motion the flow of false information required to constitute character assassination.

"Oh my such a poor loser..."

Compared to the losses of so many innocent people there is now compared to those losses my personal losses at the hands of one character assassin on one forum where character assassination is allowed, or even encouraged?

" And yet we live under their constitution."

I looked up. I saw a ceiling. Above is the roof, above that is a lot of oxygen and other gases. This character assassin is making false claims about what is, or is not above someone, somewhere?

"What a tough reality... Now what?"

Now that Native Born Citizen has decidedly sent the first stone constituting character assassination, the right thing to do, from my view, and that which constitutes my power to acknowledge and utilize or employ moral conscience, is to shine the light of accurate accounting on that character assassin on this forum.

[Joe]

A small portion that just scratches the surface of a snow ball on the iceberg that can be called Federalist opposition to the false Federal Constitution is this:

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.

 The persons who drafted the Constitution where in three main groups.

1. The open and in your face traitors who worked to turn the existing Federation into a Monarchy as a satellite arm of the existing British Cabal.

2. Those who also wanted to save their power to dictate their laws as they see them but they knew that deception was necessary in order to reach that National government goal where they then dictate as they please.

3. Those who were fooled by the powerful people in group 2.

Those who smelled a rat said so in no uncertain terms, and they left the Con Con of 1787 in protest, they would not participate further as they knew the criminals were taking over. Other opponents stayed in the Con Con in the futile effort to secure Liberty against Despotism, such as George Mason, and that group refused to sign the finished product which was then called The Dirty Compromise as it was a deal made between Northern white debt slavery fraudulent banking interests and Southern agricultural subsidized labor (a.k.a. institutionalized slavery) interests which was then known to be a future, inevitable, Civil War ensured as one by that Dirty Compromise (a.k.a. three fifths clause, and direct taxation, etc.).

The falsely labeled Anti-Federalists, including the 6th President in Congress Assembled, one named Richard Henry Lee, the true Federalists falsely abled as Anti-Federalists, worked desperately to avoid all the future destruction they knew would happen with that Dirty Compromise where the falsely labeled Nationalists, who were Monarchs, who were criminals hiding behind false words, were perpetrated what can be easily understood as fraudulent extortion.

The persons that drafted and ratified the constitution and have seen what it has become have rolled over in their graves so many times that the dust from their bones is microscopic.

One of those who drafted it, someone named James Madison, later realized what a crime he was part of, and in reaction to that crime James Madison joined with Thomas Jefferson to pen the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in an effort to avoid such things as the inevitable Civil War that was made inevitable by those who drafted the Dirty Compromise, as was warned, over, and over, again, and again, during the false advertisement campaign known as RAT-ification.

Who, exactly, is turning over in their graves, and who on the other hand is jumping for joy at the fruits of their labor in creating that false federal dictatorship that works so efficiently at destroying so many lives in such a short time?

[Native Born Citizen]

The document is quite an interesting read as it provides an insight into the deliberations of the secret convention. Not surprisingly there were winners and losers.

[Joe]

This Native Born Citizen, whatever this is, the one who assassinates character, offers again this idea that can be equated to the zero sum game falsehood.

This derivative of the root falsehood (something for nothing) involves a game master who offers a number of choices that must be accepted by whoever is sucked into this zero sum game falsehood. Of those choices the game master stacks the deck heavily in the favor of the game master while the mark, or the targeted victim who has scarcely a notion of the name of the game, is said to pick one of the few choices offered.

The game master than claims "we have a winner," and of course, in zero sum game falsehood, there is therefore a hapless loser.

Character assassins work hand in hand with the masters of zero sum game falsehoods, because naked extortion is much easier to defend against than fraudulent extortion whereby the falsehoods cover up, like false flags, like the color of law, the evil behind the thin, and thinning, veil.

[Native Born Citizen]

God granted us life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness like all other animals but gave us wolves in our midst to remove these.

So who are the wolves my friend? Because that may be two edged sword. You believe that your 'rights' came from God, a dangerous proposition, but alas not uncommon.

Their method has been to diminish moralities in order to soften and confuse society while they use abundance of wordage to empower that which holds no actual force as defined by the people. Revert to the original constitutional meanings when ratified, including the bill of rights.

Such as Justice Roberts referencing a Supreme Court case in the late 1700's in which Alexander Hamilton argued for the meaning of the term direct tax and in which we see an early example of judicial review? I am not sure why people believe that 'returning to the original meaning' is going to make a difference? I'd say that returning to the original meaning is giving a blessing to such initiatives as the ACA.

See Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796)

Original intent can be a double edged sword, can it not?

[Native Born Citizen]

I stand on the side of truth and justice, of course. Then again, neither you nor I hold any special claims on what truth and justice should look like.

What I am pointing out is that 'returning to the original language' can be quite a double edged sword, as is the case with the ACA, for example.

I do accept that there exist great confusion amongst some, and I believe that it is our task to figure out the foundations that allow us to address this confusion.

The more I read about our Founding Fathers and the early congress, the more I realize how many of them were quite the progressives, even by today's standards. I just read more about Thomas Paine and his view on taxation of property and the concepts of social security. Now, he was quite the radical, I understand, and still, to see his words. Combine those with Hamilton, Jefferson, and we start to see a picture in which the role of government was expected to be quite extensive.

 In 1798, a national property tax was enacted by the Congress and signed by John Adams

I never realized how progressive the tax really was.

[Native Born Citizen]

But justice and truth are not simple concepts. Treat me as you would expect me to treat you, is fraught with ambiguities.

I believe that our Founders understood how perverse people can be and provided for a strong government with three independent branches to implement the infrastructure on which to build our nation.

The more I look at our history, the more I come to appreciate the progressive nature in the position of many of our Founders, and see how much of it has been lost to our Country until the 20th century and beyond.

In that light, I am interested in pursuing an analysis of what the vision for the Republic was, in the eyes of the Founders, and what is supported by our Constitution.

When people claim they want to return to the original intent, I am not sure they fully comprehend what that means.

[Native Born Citizen]

And there was the Alien and Sedition Act. Neither of those ideas survived. 

The patriot act comes to mind as an example of such ideas continuing. That's an area where I had hoped to have seen more leadership from our President.

These are the 10 US senators who voted against the Patriot Act Reauthorizing Act of March 2006. The senators in bold type voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001.

NAYs ---10
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

In the house 62 Democrats, 1 independent and 3 republicans voted against the act in 2001

In 2006, 124 Democrats and 13 republicans voted against

In 2011 122 democrats and 31 Republicans voted against

Such a lost opportunity 9/11...

[Native Born Citizen]

After 9/11 we had the world looking at us, and we had an opportunity to bring many countries together in a worldwide effort to eradicate extremism, but instead we wasted it on passing a Patriot Act and acted cowardly to allow our rights to be taken away in moments of fear. In addition, we allowed our government to go to war, against imagined threats, while ignoring the larger picture.

The Patriot act should never have passed and we should have learned from history where moments of fear have caused us to do much damage against liberties.