a constitutional rabbit hole

In my last set of scribblings: never EVER trust your government!, I dove into Article V, constitutional amendments. A simple two-part opportunity to amend the Constitution, but a three-part package. And my overall warning to the post: Beware of the government usurping power from WE THE PEOPLE and giving it to themselves through law or the amendment process, understanding Congress (part 1) and State legislatures (Convention of States – part 2) can wholesale change the document. Especially if one does not understand constitutional intent, how can one understand the why of a law or an amendment? Plus, and historically speaking, Senators were originally chosen by State legislatures, but the 17^th amendment changed that to being elected by State citizens. Although Senators, by design, are to protect States Rights and Representatives – WE THE PEOPLE. And mind you, the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were inserted as sacrosanct protection for WE THE PEOPLE. Thus, and vexingly, outside of the first ten amendments, why is the angst perpetrated by legislators today purposeful to undermine the Constitution? And no, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. Then the last part of Article V was not being able to amend two clauses of the Constitution for any reason for twenty years even though Article V is about amending. So, part three of Article V is the rabbit hole here, while the holes one can dig, tunnel into a labyrinth of legislative deceit, or the buyer beware of politics and legislators.  

So, to lay a foundation of thought from my train of thought, when I was in elementary school, the rule of thumb historically speaking: Columbus discovered America (he didn’t); The pilgrims came to America to escape religious persecution (more so to make money); Custer was massacred (he wasn’t), and Patrick Henry was a great, soon to become American. Remember, he espoused those immortal words: Give me liberty or give me death! Only today, he’s no longer great, but a racist, his words unmentionable, or historically untruthful. I mean, he held slaves, questioning: How could one hold someone else in captivity while demanding such (liberty) for themselves? Isn’t America now judging his personal integrity then, by our standards of today? Or a better proposition: Since America has evolved to the point of slavery being outlawed, with the wide-open southern border and trafficking of individuals into the States to become slave labor or children as sex slaves, is our national integrity on par with Patrick’s, who while demanding freedom from tyranny, held others to a different standard? But integrity defined: Steadfast adherence to a strict ethical code. And ethic: A set of principles of right conduct. (American Heritage)

Well, before the American Revolution, sides were formed: Patriot and Loyalist. One side, Loyalist, believed the only path for safety and prosperity was through the benevolence of a king. The other side, Patriot, the national path being a self-directed course. And all of this being common knowledge (that’s what I’m told), after the war, the Articles of Confederation (AOCs) were showing cracks and crevices. So, in light thereof, some of Patrick Henry’s former Patriots became Federalists. Their desire, adopt the Constitution, deep six the AOCs, while Patrick Henry the racist, became an Anti-Federalist. He believed the AOCs were a better form of government. The two sides, having fought together to achieve freedom from England, and both desirous of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, went to war against each other on how best to achieve. Although, when one is demanding liberty while holding another in captivity, do they really believe their own words? A real conundrum if one listens to politics. Plus, should it be a difficult decision to believe one’s words, especially those long gone? A, let’s all judge the past by the present? Only, I can’t. I wasn’t there, nor should I judge another.

Anyway, I’ve heard it’s said: Integrity is what one does when no one’s looking. Well, when one is openly and blatantly destroying the country, claiming it a preserving of democracy, is that also a definition of integrity? And, in my vicious cycle of presenting perspectives to provoke thought, another part in my last post was the north/south conflict using the Constitution, Article I/Section 8/Clause 17 (government seat dilemma). So, if there is the potential to use amendments to alter the Constitution for nefarious means, thus upsetting the balance of government, along with never trusting, shouldn’t one ask: Is there actually any balance anymore anyway? Well, Article V in the Constitution had the one-part hard stop restriction for twenty years on the ability to amend slavery out of it:    

… 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.

And the two clauses subjected to the third part of Article V: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. (Article I/Section 9/First Clause)

Then: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Article I/Section 9/Fourth Clause)

Which begs: Is America really a racist nation state? Or, built into the Constitution was a compromise designed to bring two sides together: North and South? Isn’t that the mantra of those who run and win elective offices today? Their supposed goal to bring “equity” to the nation. Or should it be equality? But wasn’t that achieved with the Declaration of Independence – All men are created equal? Only, those words weren’t good enough, so the Civil Rights Act? Except, in truth, wasn’t the act itself really the start of all the national devolvement being witnessed today? The rabbit hole labyrinth of deceit with government branching into every aspect of our lives. The antithesis of constitutional design.

 So, as the last title proclaimed: never EVER trust your government, I present: This is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. – The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal Government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interests of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great-Britain. Its exclusion has been a principle object of this State, and most States in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the States; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. Yet by this Constitution it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the Union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no security for the property of that kind which we have already. There is no clause in the Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such a tax as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended, still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till after the expiration of twenty years. – For the fifth article, which provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever looked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot express my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already. So that “They have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to have done.” (George Mason)

Yeah, it’s what I thought. Like everything today, a twisting of past truths to achieve an outcome of present lies. Now, another au contraire perspective. When Dad, Barbara and I get together for the weekly glass of wine, politics is always a topic for discussion. Well, in one of our recent debates, we discussed income tax, Dad believing it unconstitutional. And yes, he included the Federal Reserve. Except in 1913, Congress created both; the ability to tax one’s income and a head bank. Only one was constitutional, the other was not. The sixteenth amendment replaced Article I/Section 9/Fourth Clause, allowing income taxation. Although: was the amendment really needed? And the Federal Reserve, created through an Act, where Congress abdicated its responsibility to control money, handing said requisite to another with no constitutional power to control. And here we are. Now, let’s throw a little fuel on the fire playing out. What happened in 1914? WWI, even though America did not enter until 1917. And was it Lusitania or Zimmerman that got us involved? So, think back: At what other periods in American history was an income tax levied? The Civil War and the tax was repealed in 1872. But … in 1894, an income tax was reinstated, then immediately deemed unconstitutional in 1895 by the Supreme Court. Well, here’s a tunnel: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (Article I/Section 8/First Clause). A two-part proposition, while in the second half, taxes are exempt from being uniform. And food for thought, the Constitution does not define what, and where, lay and collect taxes applies.

 To close, Dad being a fighter pilot, we moved often. Well, in 1968, he was stationed at George AFB outside Adelanto (Victorville), California. Behind the house we lived in was a large field. I was about ten when I wound up with a Cox PT-19 trainer, a string controlled engined powered plane. I’d stand in one spot while the plane flew under my control in a circle. For longevity, it was held together with rubber bands allowing a crash to not destroy it. Well, on our maiden flight, things were working beautifully until I started to get dizzy going in a circle. Who knows what I was doing wrong while controlling the plane’s up and down, trying to maintain level, steady flight. With queasy being the control of me, I somehow managed to put the plane into a loop. Only, the loop was up and then straight down with a hard, ground controlled stop at ground level. Dad called it: auguring in. I called it crap as the rubber bands didn’t protect the bird. It never flew again. So, while the vicious cycle of politics continues the ups and downs of false integrity, here’s hoping we don’t auger the nation or break the bands that are holding things together.