the Constitution: it's amendable, but really?

Power: possession of control, authority, or influence over others (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)

For the past year-and-a-half, I’ve been pushing a constitutional perspective, I believe, wholly unspoken of, but in line with the Constitution and what the Framers intended. A perspective based on a Federalist and Anti-Federalist point view. My reasoning: Our country is not healthy, and if WE THE PEOPLE do not wake up now, and demand the truthful change needed, the result of our apathy will not end well for us or our posterity. Sadly, it may all be too late anyway as things now stand, bringing me to this week’s perspective. Recently, one individual stated my writing is “waxing poetic.” Except, there is nothing poetic about my writing. It’s more a fear we are losing our nation to the ones who swore to protect and defend it. And those who were supposed to be in power, being WE THE PEOPLE, have surrendered character and integrity for a perceived truth that is actually a lie. The begging question: How does one determine such? 

So, during childhood, I was seven, when I watched the Wizard of Oz. I remember the tinman wanted a heart, the lion, courage, and the scarecrow, a brain. Then there was Dorothy. She and Toto just wanted to get back to Kansas. But those flying monkeys? Let’s just say I slept with my bb-gun loaded that night. Today, the result of my memory watching the movie bringing forth analogies of intent in lieu of waxing poetic. First, with the intentional division of people into party specific sides, and those individuals standing firm, willingly arguing issues without constitutional backing, or throwing shallow, missing fact memes around: The scarecrow comes to mind. Second, for years after having self-studied constitutional foundation, I sat silent, believing no right to convey, until frustration overwhelmed fear, and through verbosity in writing, I found my courage. Then, after the past year-and-a-half, I also found the heart to verbally speak out. So much, I now eagerly engage people and offer up a “business card” I carry in the desire more individuals might take the time to read these posts. Problematically though, I’ve also been told: You’re wasting your time. But what I’ve discovered: There is a tremendous number of people who believe the Wizard of Oz does reside in D.C. Only, the real truth: It’s the wicked witch of the east and she wants your soul. And trust me, we’re not in Kansas anymore, but moving closer to the make-believe land of Oz. Only, there is no yellow brick road. But watch out for those flying monkeys.

Now, way back when, during a time apparent that is mostly forgotten today, British America became the United States of America. What started as thirteen independent States joined by a “firm league of friendship,” until those in power woke up one day and found the governing document originally established wasn’t working so well. Or was it? Thus, in the ongoing debate began a new experiment using the Constitution, uniting those thirteen independent States under one federal head with limited power. But between the original Articles and the newly created foundation, one truly discerning difference among many changes was that federal head. Three branches; Executive, Legislative, Judicial, where before under the Articles, it was just a Congress. Each State allowed one vote, while the States themselves held their powers independently under State Constitutions. And in that structure of power, under the Articles was an impotent Congress. The American Revolution itself spoke of its inability to carry out its responsibilities. Only today, under the Constitution, including the other two branches, we have a deceptive and incompetent one. But, interwoven into the adoption of the Constitution was Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Framers believed moving forward, the need to amend the document might be required from time-to-time, understanding: Discretion being the better part of valor. But in the battle to adopt the Constitution the Anti-Federalist wanted it amended before ratification, and afterwards ultimately incorporated the Bill of Rights (BORs), the first ten amendments. Two sides, fighting for their perceived truth, asking: Which side was more right? Now, the amazing aspect, I believe, to the Constitution, is its simplicity of design, yet the fallacy in that is the ease in which to pervert it: amendments. And the easiest way to achieve perversion is to instill a fundamental lack of knowledge in WE THE PEOPLE, thereby allowing an intended shift to take place. The vicious cycle requiring a responsibility of all to understand intent: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; (Declaration of Independence). And every time the Constitution is amended past the BORs, the government changes course from the design of original intent to an obfuscated intent of design.

So, without taking a deep dive, take the 14^th Amendment. A slave amendment which has, in recent history, become an anchor baby amendment. The intent of the original design becoming a new design of intent, wholly outside the desire to make citizens, those who were held in captivity, citizens. Except, those in power today are using it to obtain greater power by allowing those who are not citizens to become so, or to remain in the country. The decennial census then gaining representatives for those States who house those who are not citizens, defacto giving them the power of “citizenship” and their growing number of Representatives power in Congress, to just start the conversation. Conversely, those States who do not allow the surge, lose Representatives. Remember, by law, only 435 are allowed on the House floor. Except, in all of this, the 10^th Amendment gives the power of immigration to the States (think Constitution and government cannot control – Federalist 45), while the power of “uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Constitution - Article 1/Section 8/4^th Clause) belongs to Congress. UNIFORM being the key word! And once a baby is anchored, what then becomes of the incoming family tree into the country, keeping uniform in mind?

Then, consider the 18^th Amendment: Prohibition. The desire then was to control the masses, an outright unconstitutional move. The pushback was so severe, the 18^th was repealed with the 21^st Amendment.  Which brings forth a recent meme I’ve read: In 1947, Congress passed the 22^nd Amendment, limiting the President to 2 terms. They said, “Too much power for too long is a threat to our freedom.” It’s time to limit Congress for the same reason! Except, the president has no power, as Congress holds all the cards of power, being divided amongst the many, as opposed to being held in the hands of the few. The Framers, having based the Constitution on their experience living under the power of a king, intentionally disallowed the executive any single-handed ability to change the nation’s course by executive fiat. Although FDR, in his day attempted to obtain autarchy by packing the Supreme Court. Only, his party refused his attempt to become a king. Today, I believe, party would allow the subterfuge.

So, ponder the Anti-Federalists and their demand for the BORs. But remember, pursuant to the Framers, they were not necessary, the government is not allowed to control what it cannot control. And, sadly, where the Anti’s demanded absolutes, based on the actions of the Executive today, he claims the BORs are not absolute. But if the Constitution is altered, the rules can be altered. So, who was/is more right? Because in truth, they were intended to be absolutes, no matter what one says. And anyone believing otherwise does not understand or know our history, or the Constitution. Conversely, the desire to make them otherwise is an opportunity to further control the masses. Amendments; the means to an end.  

In closing, it was fifty-eight years ago that I watched the Wizard of Oz (damn I’m old). And if I remember correctly, Oz behind the curtain turned out to be a false prophet, a conman, unable to grant anybody a wish, while the lion, tinman, and scarecrow each already possessed their desires from birth. They just needed the ability to recognize them. Dorothy on the other hand made it back to Kansas by the benevolence of the good witch. Only, at home when she woke up, it was all a dream. Although, on the other hand, WE THE PEOPLE are living a in nightmare. So much, I believe amendments in general are not only unnecessary, but unwise. Because, if one reads and understands our governing documents, they’d see the beauty of their design, the intent of, allowing all of us and our posterity to live as freely as the Framers intended. Their desired juxtaposition: The government was meant to be fed, not feed, believing power belongs in the hands of the people. So, never forget, in everything one does, the controlling factor should be morality, and one cannot legislate such. Learn the Constitution!