some constitutional fundamentals for thought

My last piece: executive order my ass, was apparently difficult to follow based on some input by readers. The points I was attempting to make were, first, there is life after death. And if we kill the country, a vacuum of sorts will institute new life being a replacement of government: despotism. Additionally, based on a personal experience, if one is involved in the death of the original, they don’t want to be on the receiving end hearing: You killed her (country)! But … the only way to know if anyone is right or wrong on the multitude of issues being bantered about daily is to have a fundamental understanding of our governing documents. And pluralizing the word document includes the Declaration of Independence (even though it’s not grounded law), Constitution, and the Bill of Rights (BORs).

And yes, most citizens have nary a clue about any of them, apparent by the mess the country is in. Plus, intermixed and the main point of the piece intended: There is no such thing as the president having any power to write law through an executive order. Easy enough, right? Apparently not. As by default, it has happened. Think DACA. Then ask yourself: Did the Supreme Court intentionally fail to strike it down? Or, is there a cabal in place running the country to undo the country? But aside from the national dilemmas being faced; fundamental defined, based in the Framer’s day and time: Pertaining to the foundation or basis; serving for the foundation. Hence, essential; important; as a fundamental truth or principle; a fundamental law; a fundamental sound or chord in music (Webster’s 1828). And the modern definition: serving as an original or generating source: PRIMARY; serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function: BASIC. (Merriam-Webster’s 2009)

Which brings me full circle to the Constitution; itself a fundamental law (Federalist 78). Meaning: every law written by Congress (the only branch able to write law) needs to find a law’s basis or root in the document. To convey; when the Framer’s were pushing the argument to dump the Articles of Confederation (AOCs) and adopt the Constitution, one of their selling features: Every thing not given (power) is reserved to the people. Remember, under the AOCs, America had a Congress (impotent by structure), no federal, or president, just thirteen independent States. But, in the selling process, the Anti-Federalists were not buying, their memory of a despotic king too recent. Thus, and mandatory, a BORs, even though they followed ratification by three years. And for them, those first ten amendments were absolute, something the government could not touch. Which begs: Why are they no longer absolute? So, in the Federalist’s mind, the absence of words was better framing, whereas the Anti-Federalist’s demanded the inclusion of words to clearly define absolute.

Yet the absence of words dictated what the government had power to legislate (for or against) or had no ability to be in control of. The Constitution, Article I, Sections 8 and 9 define the powers granted Congress. Governing limits set by the Framer’s to protect WE THE PEOPLE from government overreach, including things based in their history of the past: But the powers of the Federal Government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases: It has Legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction (James Madison).

So, let’s example some points convoluting the nation on many fronts, starting with marriage. There is not a single word mentioned in the Constitution giving any authority to Congress to legislate. Yet, by design and throughout history, marriage has been an institution of religion. Biblically, it’s clearly stated in the Bible. Thereby, based on the Constitution, government is unable to control the covenant of, as it is an institution found only in religion. Although, to bring a complexity of thought, is not the mantra expounded on today: separation of church and state? A perversion I believe of the First Amendment’s intent, placing an oxymoron to any argument of government being involved or associated in a religious event. And yes, all three branches have purposely failed entirely on this one issue.

Now, take loans. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, allows Congress the ability “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States,” but nowhere mentioned is the government able to loan taxpayer money. In essence, I believe, government’s intent through handouts of vote buying, along with the ability to pick winners and losers, create millionaires, or prop up failing businesses. Take GM, Solyndra, Proterra. Each of these institutions were handed borrowed money, while two failed outright, and GM “repaid” the government in stock. Yet, when the stock was cashed, it had fallen price to a level where the taxpayer took the hit, while GM’s stockholders, upper echelon, and the auto unions reaped the reward. The union themselves were able to fund their unfunded liabilities off the backs of taxpayers. And to date, no one has been held to account.

And, let’s not even get into the bank bailouts, except: Article I, Section 8: To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures … Congress having the ability to regulate money, but no ability to control the banking of, thus: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, a power taken by Congress, not given by the Constitution. Yet, in 2008, it all failed after being placed under the control of Congress in 1913. So, as the government assumed bank regulating, who’s actually overseeing banks based on the most recent failures in 2023. Especially when the taxpayer is on the hook. Plus, between banks and GM, one of the reasons given in recent history regarding them: Too big to fail. But are they? If GM had filed for bankruptcy, a new GM would have reopened just after. Except, in failing, the unions would have failed as well. But in each of these events, Congress, acting unconstitutionally, did the unconstitutional, and loaned money to bail out, or propped up a failing company, yet no one cared. Recently, Ford was handed a 9.2 billion loan to build a battery manufacturing plant. The taxpayer again, on the hook, being forced to partake without choice. Who’s responsible to whom? And the bank bailouts. Who profited, and who paid the bill? Ask yourself: Are WE THE PEOPLE to be held responsible for the failure of government:

… by this Government, powers are not given to any particular set of men – They are in the hands of the people – delegated to their Representatives chosen for short terms. To Representatives responsible to the people, and whose situation is perfectly similar to their own: - As long as this is the case we have no danger to apprehend. (James Madison)

Or should we apprehend: When the Gentleman (Patrick Henry) called our recollection to the usual effects of the concession of powers, and imputed the loss of liberty generally to open tyranny, I wish he had gone on further. Upon a review of history he would have found, that the loss of liberty very often resulted from factions and divisions; - from local considerations, which eternally leads to quarrels – He would have found internal dissentions to have more frequently demolished civil liberty, than a tenacious disposition in rulers, to retain any stipulated powers. (James Madison)

While I should continue with examples, I wonder if James Madison got part mostly right and some quite wrong. Because there appears to exist in America, a continual vicious cycle of repeat in the government’s desire to usurp power from the people, party power the driving force. The national riots (George Floyd protests) across the country while the government (local/State/Federal) allowed the destruction to take place, an excellent example. In closing, a Bible verse is apropos to everything taking place: What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted (Ecclesiastes 1:15). And while we judge the nation’s Framers harshly based on our evolved social standards, I ask: How would they judge us based on their standards and sacrifices to give us, their posterity, a nation based on the tenets of individual liberty. So, think: No form of government can make a vicious and ignorant people happy. – When the majority of our citizens becomes corrupt, even our well balanced constitution cannot save us from slavery and ruin. Let it therefore be the unceasing study of all who love their country, to promote virtue and dispense knowledge through the whole extent of our settlements. Without them our growing numbers will soon degenerate into barbarism … (David Ramsay)