agenda is the desire of intent!

If hindsight is 20/20, what is the inverse if one was able to see the future, and thereby designed a government to protect posterity. Their intent, prevent a tyrannical past from repeating. Would their foresight be 20/5? Something to truly ponder, as throughout world history, power has always been the elixir most desired by those in control. The conundrum for those in power, balance, as the subjugation of others through force to extract a perceived hegemony can at times backfire. And yes, there are those who would rather crush the citizens beneath them than appease prevailing sentiments.

Case in point. On the 4th of July 1776, some of those living in British America had reached a brake (full stop) point and declared independence from Great Britain. Those who partook, stepping off the proverbial cliff into the unknown. Their outcomes, dependent on a win. A draw, or loss would have meant certain death for the individuals involved who believed enough was enough. Their overarching desire to dissolve the existing union, an overabundance of abuse:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

With twenty-seven total grievances presented in the Declaration of Independence, the colonies, though not all citizens were on board, decided to form a new government; “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  Although, at the start of hostilities, they did not have the foundation laid but eventually would. And, the design, or should it be labeled, the Confederation, was based against what they’d been under, some of which included:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Then, once the world-war known as the American Revolution was settled, and each participating nation returned to their respective countries, America embarked on a new path forward: WE THE PEOPLE, even though the structure of wording had yet to be coined. Erstwhile, to prevent the past from repeating, thereby keeping tyranny from rearing again, the Articles of Confederation strived to keep State’s rights sovereign. So much, over time, Congress would prove impotent, while a standing Army or Navy, from the outset, antithetical to the principles envisioned: No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. (Article VI)

Except, when the Articles started to show signs of vagueness, two sides met to decide the best course of action; bolster or replace. As we know, the Constitution prevailed, but the document included sticking points. One of those was Article I/Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years …

Allowing the potential for tyranny, a standing army the precursor, including powers granted, was foremost on the minds of those labeled Anti-Federalist. Their desire, military restrictions, and a Bill of Rights mandatory, while the new government, with power, albeit limited, had to overcome old memories which were difficult to erase, especially in the desire to maintain a full-time army:

… the danger apprehended from the standing army allowed by the new plan. This grand machine of power and oppression, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties, especially as the funds to support the troops may be granted for two years, whereas in Britain, the grants ever since the revolution in 1688, have been from year to year. A standing army with regular provision of pay and contingencies, would afford a strong temptation to some ambitious man to step up into the throne, and to seize absolute power. The keeping on foot a hired military force in time of peace, ought not to be gone into, unless two thirds of the members of the federal legislature agree to the necessity of the measure, and adjust the numbers employed. (Centinel II)

A military force anathema, the impetus to one usurping power not granted. The Constitution though, a Bill of Rights, while the exclusion of them considered by many, an ability to exercise tyranny at will. A vicious cycle reminiscent of America today if one only looks below the surface of government provided tranquility:

Even the press which has so long been employed in the cause of liberty, and to which perhaps the greatest part of the liberty which exists in the world is owing at this moment; the press may possibly be restrained of its freedom, and our children may possibly not be suffered to enjoy this most invaluable blessing of a free communication of each others sentiments on political subjects – Such at least appear to be some men’s fears, and I cannot find in the proposed constitution any thing expressly calculated to obviate these fears; so that they may or may not be realized according to the principles and dispositions of the men who may govern us hereafter. … And if the freedom of the press shall be restrained, it will be another reason to despair of any amendments being made in favor of liberty, after the proposed constitution shall once be established. Add to this, that under the proposed constitution, it will be in the power of the Congress to raise and maintain a standing army for their support, and when they are supported by an army, it will depend on themselves to say whether any amendments shall be made in favor of liberty. (An Old Whig)

Roughly three years after the Constitution’s adoption, the Bill of Rights were ratified. Except, their original intent is no longer the intended intent. A fallacy in the belief of party politics holding the welfare of the people at heart, and government, the benefactor. And what was once fiercely fought over to obtain and presented as absolute, government unable to touch, has become the basis for government claiming not absolute, its ability to regulate and control whatever it deems desirous to control. Only once controlled, tyranny will once again present, liberty will be lost, and old will become new again. Although, the Framer’s of the past whose beliefs should still be present acknowledged one untouchable, sacrosanct right. But today, it appears instilled in the people, a willingness in the desire to surrender to supposedly protect the people overall. And once government achieves its ultimate goal, WE THE PEOPLE, will lose everything those before fought to obtain, unless:     

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. (A Citizen of America)

The dilemma one needs to understand; agenda is the desire of intent, while intent can be the undoing to control. To know the past is to understand the future, whereas understanding the past will help realize the future, especially if one is espousing - “Trust me!” And once the press, by choice, is fully weaponized to usurp, while misinformation and dis-information become the battle cry to end any debate, then realizing why the weapon is being removed from the hands of those who should be in control beginning with: When in the Course of human events. The vicious cycle to obfuscate issues which are man-made by design, believing the Framer’s foundation laid was to prevent “human events” from altering the nation’s course.