Skip to main content

FEET TO THE FIRE

To ensure the elected do what's expected

Home
About FTTF
An American Invocation
How We Work
A21 training
A21 Stories
A21 Petition
Agenda 21
Essential Constitution
USURPATION--wrong track
Timely Articles
Common Core
Take Action Now
Related Links
Contact Us

USURPATION—JUST ONE REASON THE COUNTRY IS ON THE WRONG TRACK

 

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8—THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE—PROBABLY THE MOST PERNICIOUS (there are many more) USURPATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

 

Most that pay attention know the entire Constitution is usurped daily by the 535 plus representatives who swore they would not let that happen. But just as just as Ted Cruz shook up the entire establishment with his fidelity to the Texans that sent him there, consider where we would be if only Article 1 Section 8 was upheld, and taxes and spending was confined just to those specified by the enumerated powers. There would be:

 

·         No Federal Department of Education

·         No Federal Department of Energy

·         No Federal Welfare

·         No Obamacare

·         No Social Security

·         No Medicare

·         No Federal Public Private Partnerships

There is so much more, but you get the idea

 

So what does it say? Pull out you Constitution and follow along.

 

Section. 8. The text:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Followed immediately by the Enumerated powers.

Simple. No ambiguity. Written so the average man could understand.

Now consider what the founders said: (the bold italics are mine)

 

FROM The Founding Fathers guide to the Constitution In Federalist No.41, Madison questioned why anyone would have a problem with the phrase “general welfare.” He said, “But what colour can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms, immediately follows; and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon…Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

 

Today, the interpretation by the usurpers would have you believe that Article 1 Section 8 had a period after general Welfare, and nothing else followed!

 

The text goes on to say: “And while on the floor of Congress in 1791, Madison said “the general welfare “was limited to acts laying taxes for them; and the general purposes themselves were limited and explained by the particular enumeration subjoined. To understand these terms in any sense, that would justify the power in question, would give the Congress an unlimited power; would render nugatory the enumeration of particular powers; would supersede all the powers reserved to the state governments. These terms are copied from the articles of confederation; had it ever been pretended, that they were to be understood otherwise than as here explained.” The italics and bold face is mine.

 

Hamilton may have said it best when he suggested that the “leading objects of the federal government…are to maintain domestic peace, and provide for the common defense.” “Domestic peace” equaled “general welfare.”

For almost 140 years our elected representatives have had their differences as Madison warned. But, with few exceptions our representatives overcame the irresistible temptation to usurp their taxing authority to buy votes with taxing power not authorized in the Constitution.

 

But then came the Roosevelt administration who needed to advance his end game—the socialists state. For a fascinating article on just how Roosevelt did this and how Lyndon Johnson exacerbated this usurpation, take a look at http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html (Interesting to note in the link that in this case the so-called swing conservative justice was also named Roberts)

 

So, let’s see if I’ve got this right:

 

1.      A liberal/socialists/left leaning/statists/progressive—your choice—administration is elected.

2.      They are then successful in packing the Supreme Court with like-minded justices: let’s say there are nine total and they find five to vote to change the entire meaning of a major part of the Constitution.

3.      Now we are to believe that only these four justices who swore to uphold that Constitution that served us so well all these years can effectively overturn a major part of the contract (Constitution) that we—the sovereign citizen—entrusted them, our servants—to uphold? I don’t think so!

4.       Here’s some extracts from the indomitable Publius Huldah’s website to get you thinking about this and other usurpations.

5.      Then, have you ever wondered why liberal Senators like Chuck Schumer dwell endlessly on the subject of Stare Decisis (precedent law) during their advice and consent duties with regard to Supreme Court nominees? If you understand Publius Huldah’s comments below, you will understand why Stare Decisis is so important for statists to convince you that unconstitutional law can never be changed!   

6.      See http://publiushuldah.com/ and click on usurpation—then, the taxing clause (right-hand column—far down) and you will understand. Here’s some extracts from PH’s arguments.

·         When federal judges redefine terms in the Constitution, they “amend” the Constitution in violation of Art. V.  Article V. sets forth the two lawful methods of amending the Constitution, neither of which is “redefinition by judges”.

·         Are there remedies for this judicial lawlessness?  YES! Congress should use its Impeachment Power to remove the usurping judges.  How many times have you heard they have “lifetime appointments”?  They don’t!  The only reason it ends up that way is because our representatives in Congress are ignorant & lack the Will to do the right thing.  Alexander Hamilton addressed judicial usurpations & the judiciary’s “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force” in The Federalist No. 81, 9th para:

·         the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachmentsin one part of the legislative body [House], and of determining upon them in the other [Senate], would give to that body [Congress] upon the members of the judicial department.  This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it [the impeachment power], while this body [Congress] was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehension on the subject it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments [some had said impeachments should be tried in the supreme court]. [italics added]

·         Folks, ignorance & misinformation will do us in if we don’t learn the Truth pretty soon. “Everybody” says judges have “lifetime appointments”, & we believe it.  Well, now YOU know that federal judges can be impeached, convicted & kicked off the bench for usurping power!  We hear that “The Rule of Law” requires us to go along with all court decisions.  That is a Lie!  If the decision is based on an usurpation, the Rule of Law requires us to spit on the decision and demand that the judges be impeached & removed from the bench.

·         Finally, a word about our Rights:  The Constitution is about the Powers which We the People delegated to the 3 Branches of the Federal Government. It is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God, are unalienable, & predate the Constitution!We created the Constitution & the federal government!  Why would the Creator (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the federal courts), the power to determine & define OUR Rights?

·         Alexander Hamilton opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. He said they were unnecessary & dangerous because they contain exceptions to powers which are not granted.  Thus, they afford a pretext to regulate those Rights (The Federalist No. 84, 10th Para).  Hamilton was a prophet as well as a genius in political philosophy.

·         Today, we have been conditioned to believe that the source of our “Rights” is the Constitution, as defined & “discovered”, from time to time, by unelected federal judges.  But D.C. v. Heller (2008) http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/ which upheld private ownership of guns, was a 5 to 4 decision!  One vote switched to the other side, and the Supreme Court will rule that we have no right to bear arms.

·         THIS is what happens when we substitute the Constitution for God as the Source of our Rights.  You must always insist that your Rights to Bear Arms – to defend yourself – are unalienable and come from God, not the Second Amendment!  Don’t forget that We had that Right before the Constitution was ratified.  The same principle applies to all of our Rights.  If, like the Declaration of Independence, we insist that they come from God and are unalienable, no human court or legislative body can take them away from us.

·         Publius/Huldah (June 22, 2009; revised July 16, 2010)

·        

[1] Since ours is a Constitution of delegated & enumerated Powers, the U.S. must be authorized by the Constitution to act on a subject before any Treaty on that subject qualifies as part of the “supreme Law of the Land” (Art. VI, cl.2).

[2] Hamilton said this is the only instance in which the Constitution contemplates the federal courts hearing cases between citizens of the same State. The Federalist No. 80 (3rd Para from end).

[3] The 11th Amendment (ratified 1795) withdrew from the federal courts the power to hear cases filed against one of the States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign State.

[4] Hamilton gave examples: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]” (3rd Para).

[5] Prof. Berger retired in 1976 as Senior Fellow in American Legal History, Harvard University. His book is at http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&Itemid=28 It is fascinating!

[6] Here is the link to Ch. 11.  Read it!  You will then know more about “due process” than most federal judges! http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&chapter=106938&layout=html&Itemid=27

[7]http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=675&chapter=106887&layout=html&Itemid=27

June 22, 2009

June 22, 2009Posted by Publius Huldah | 14th Amendment, Article III Courts, Article III, Sec. 2, Enumerated Powers of Federal Courts | 34 Comments