Atrocities Against Our Constitution

There were only two purposes for which our Founding Fathers established the Constitution:

1.  Establish a Federal Government for the United States of America.

2.  Delegate to the federal government certain limited (and enumerated) powers.

Guess what?  The States are the boss of the federal government.  Does that seem to be the case in this country today?  This may be a stretch, but it sure seems to me that on a daily basis the boss (the States) are being controlled by the employee (the federal government).  The Supreme Court, to put it mildly, has a conflict of interest.  It pretends to enforce the Constitution, but who “manages” the Supreme Court?

Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not give any of us rights.  We are born with rights as American citizens.  The Constitution is in place, therefore, to do what?  To protect those rights.  The rights that are deemed most important by our Founders can be found in the Bill of Rights.

So let’s just pretend there was no Constitution.  What happens then?  Simple.  The States and the people have all the rights, and there is no federal government.  With the Constitution, the States and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Did you know that?

So how did what is occurring in this country today happen?  Where did the brainwashing come from that makes people live their lives believing that we have to listen to the federal government, that they have some kind of power over us?  Even the most stoic Conservative gets sucked in every day to the belief that you have to tiptoe around so as not to get in “trouble” with the federal government.  Given the truth, that we are the bosses and they are the employees, this is ludicrous, preposterous, and absurd.

The federal government is like the bully that convinces you to give him your lunch money every day.  You know it’s wrong.  You know the bully has no right to do that.  So why do you do it?  Fear.  Fear of getting beat up.  Fear of the repercussions and not having the spine or fortitude to stand up to the bully.  But there are those of us that fear no bully, that would kick the ass of anyone that tried to steal our lunch money, that just simply would not stand for it.  And every year, it seems as though the fearless are becoming fewer and farther between.

Every day that a bully is allowed to steal lunch money, that bully becomes more empowered, more cocky, more certain that his way is the right way because he stands against no opposition.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, here’s the problem:  It is the Supreme Court’s job to ask the question, “Are rights being violated by this law?”  That’s not what happens anymore, though.  What happens in 2013 within our Supreme Court is “Is the violation of this right justified because of the federal government’s goals and objectives?”  WRONG.  Violations of rights are NEVER justified.

When goals or objectives of the federal government violate your rights, the result is the same thing every time.  It is unconstitutional.  What does the 10th Amendment say?  In no uncertain terms, any powers that we did not give to the federal government are ours and ours alone.

Any parent understands this concept.  Your kids have rules.  Your kids are going to push those boundaries.  All of a sudden, your kid starts making his/her own rules.  You start following your kid’s rules instead.  Ridiculous?  Of course, but that’s exactly what you’re doing when you allow the federal government to overreach its authority under the Constitution.

Believe it or not, for about the first 150 years of our republic, this was a very understood and accepted concept; that the U.S. was much more in line with the country envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  There was a time when Congress knew its limits.  And as much as they would have liked to go outside those limits, they didn’t dare.  Today?  It’s a joke.  There seems to be no boundaries or limits.  It’s a free-for-all.  If it makes you “feel” good, go for it.  If you stand to gain financially, go for it.  More power?  Cool, yes, go for it.

Remember prohibition?  Well, not literally, but you know what I mean.  Congress understood that the only way prohibition could be enacted was with a constitutional amendment.  Now when the government decides to ban certain drugs, they just pass a law.  Guess what?  These laws are equally as unconstitutional as a law would have been in 1920 banning alcohol.  Drug prohibition has caused a marked increase in violent crime in the same way that alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933 caused rampant violence amongst bootleggers.

As a result of prohibition, in 1934 Congress passed the National Firearms Act.  The NFA doesn’t ban any particular weapons, because Congress had no power to do so.  What it did do is impose a tax on certain weapons.

What are we dealing with today?  The assault weapons ban prohibiting the manufacture of certain “scary-looking” guns.  A ban on the manufacture of machine guns (except by law enforcement) has also been enacted.  The problem is nothing has changed.  These laws are just as unconstitutional as they were in 1934.  History has taught Congress that they can get away with ignoring the constraints of the Constitution.  How?  Why?  Because the Supreme Court will uphold these unconstitutional laws.

It is therefore up to the people and the States to take responsibility for and exercise the power of determining what is and is not constitutional.  The Supreme Court’s nine justices attempt to sort out what is and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review.  But the States, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court or to any branch of the government.  Learn something new every day, huh?

Since the Constitution does not give this power to the Supreme Court, you might wonder how it came to be that the Supreme Court assumed this responsibility.  The answer is that the Supreme Court just started doing it, and no one has put a stop to it.  It is a huge conflict of interest.  The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws.  It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house.” Justices are appointed for life. If the Supreme Court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation.

There are only nine Justices.  Under the current system, it takes only a simple majority — five votes — to determine a case. Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the Constitution to pass constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the Supreme Court to uphold a suspect law defies the spirit of the Constitution.

Here’s another little tidbit for you:  Officials in all three branches of government take an oath of office to “uphold” the Constitution.

The Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Congressmen, Vice President, and other federal officers all take an oath of office to “support and defend” the Constitution.

The Constitution was created by the States, and any question as to the meaning of the Constitution is rightly settled by the States. When you make rules for your children, do you permit your children to interpret your rules in any manner they like? Of course not. Yet, the States are permitting the federal government — the “child” of the States — to do exactly that.

The Constitution may be amended by the people (in the form of the Congress) and by the States (State legislatures or State constitutional conventions).  Large majorities (called a “supermajority”) are required both to bring a proposed amendment to a vote (two-thirds) and to approve a new amendment (three-fourths). It is clear that the founders did not want amending the highest law of the land to be easy or trivial.

The Constitution is routinely, and easily ‘amended’ by the Congress. When the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it has the very same effect as if the Congress had amended the Constitution without the consent of the States — government assumes powers not granted to it by the States in the Constitution. Passing unconstitutional laws is very easy. Once passed, repealing unconstitutional laws is very, very hard.

There is no question that passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws does harm to the Constitution, to the States, and to the people of the United States. I would contend that it is better to defeat 100 constitutional laws than to pass one unconstitutional law. First, do no harm. We must make it harder for the Congress to pass unconstitutional laws.

There are two broad objectives to be achieved to restore constitutional government:

We must stop the passage of new, unconstitutional laws.

We must strike down unconstitutional laws that are already on the books.

Source:  Warren Michelsen, The Constitutionality Crisis

Leave a Reply