I know that these missives I write do make their way around, and that some people actually do read them. However, there are still those who disagree, or refuse to accept the truth, the truth being that their government has overstepped its Constitutional authority and has become tyrannical and oppressive.

So, what I would like to do is to try a different tactic. I would like to argue my case as if I were in a court of law, I will present the evidence I have which supports my position, then ask that those of you who still believe that your government is doing the job it is supposed to, provide me with any evidence you have to support your position. I simply ask that you leave your emotions out of it, instead present me with evidence which supports your position. If you cannot do this, I would ask that you then, re-evaluate your position and ask yourself, what are you going to do to remedy the problem of a government which no longer adheres to the Constitution.

In the 1969 Supreme Court case of Powell v McCormack, the court ruled, “The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments.” Conversely then, the further in time one gets from the drafting of that document, the more its meaning is twisted and misinterpreted, by both the public who expect the government to do more for them, and by the government itself which seeks to usurp more power and oppress the people.

I am reminded of an experiment one of my elementary school teachers did when I was younger. She had the entire class line up side by side and then she whispered something into the first students ear, who, in turn, whispered it into the next students ear. This was repeated until the last student said aloud what was whispered into their ear. When we completed the exercise, what the last student said aloud bared absolutely no resemblance to what the teacher had whispered into the first students ear. So it is with our Constitution, the further in time we go from its initial drafting, the more twisted our interpretations of it become.

The first thing we must ask ourselves is, what is a Constitution, and what is its purpose? From his pamphlet The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine states, “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature.”

In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Joseph Story states, “It is a compact, by which the federal government is bound to the several states, and to every citizen of the United States. Although the federal government can in no possible view be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was in fact created; yet, as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence, but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being, in fact duties, it can possess no legitimate power, but such as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty prescribed, and enjoined by the constitution.” (emphasis added)

Justice Story goes on to say, “IN our future commentaries upon the constitution we shall treat it, then, as it is denominated in the instrument itself, as a CONSTITUTION of government, ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers, and reserved all others to the states or to the people. It is a popular government. Those who administer it are responsible to the people. It is as popular, and Just as much emanating from the people, as the state governments. It is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. It may be altered, and amended, and abolished at the will of the people.” (emphasis added)

Now that we have shown what a Constitution is, we must now explain the purpose for which it was written. In 1866 Supreme Court Justice David Davis stated, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”

The purpose for which our Constitution was written can be found within its preamble, which states, “… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” But, the purpose our founders felt that all governments were created is found in our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis added)

James Wilson, delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, which provided us with the Constitution, states, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

In 1782 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”

Our Constitution created three distinct branches of government, each with distinct powers and duties. The job of the legislature, or Congress, was to legislate, or make or create law. The job of the executive, or the President, was to these laws into effect, while the job of the judiciary was to ensure justice was properly administered. Each branch had a check upon the powers of the others to ensure that none overstepped their authority.

However, in Federalist 47, James Madison warned, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.”

At the time our Constitution was written there were many who felt that it granted this new system of government far too much power and that unless it was modified, or amended, to ensure certain rights were never infringed upon, or violated, they would not agree to this new system. Hence, a Bill of Rights was drafted, and properly ratified, making it part and parcel of the Constitution. And since, the Constitution is, as Article 6 states, the Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, then rights mentioned in the first ten amendments were also the Supreme Law of the Land, and thereby off limits to ANY encroachment, be it by the federal, state, or local governments.

Some people believe that we still live in the land of the free, but if they were to read the Bill of Rights, then think about all the laws that invade their privacy, that restrict their free speech, limit their ability to worship as they see fit, or own and carry a firearm, then they would realize that we are not so free after all.

Numerous Supreme Court Justices have stated that our rights are inviolable, which means, secure from being infringed, breached, or broken. In the case of Bell v. Hood, the Court ruled, “History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”

In the case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943, Justice Robert H. Jackson declared, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Finally, going back to 1789, Albert Gallatin is quoted as saying, “The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals …. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”

Now, before I continue, I would like to add one comment based upon a quote taken from the Supreme Court case of Ex parte Milligan in 1866, which states, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

This statement means that the Constitution is a law, and being a law it protects each of us equally, no matter which state we may reside in, and it also means that we may not ask our elected representatives to do things for us which are not among those powers specifically granted them by that document.

So now we have the basic framework; a government with 3 branches, each having distinct and enumerated powers, all who have the duty to protect and defend our rights. Since Congress is the sole legislative branch, that being the branch authorized to create law, what powers does the Constitution grant them? It most cases I would simply refer my readers to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution so that they may read them for themselves. However, in this instance it is critical that you read them now. Here are the only powers granted to Congress by the Constitution:

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If I were to list individually, or even a small fraction of the laws passed by Congress which overstep these specific powers, this article would be hundreds of pages long. However, every usurpation of power by our government has taken place by their interpretation of three clauses found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, those being; the General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. By our governments, (and by government I am also including the interpretations laid down in numerous Supreme Court rulings), our government has implied that these three clauses have granted them implied powers, powers which are not specifically enumerated, merely implied.

From the First Annals of Congress, we find the following statement by James Jackson, “We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government .”

James Madison had this to say about the powers granted government under the General Welfare Clause, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

From his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story said the following:

Regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause, “The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant.”

Regarding the General Welfare Clause, “The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers. This is apparent, as will be presently seen, from the history of the proceedings of the convention, which framed it; and it has formed the admitted basis of all legislative and judicial reasoning upon it, ever since it was put into operation, by all, who have been its open friends and advocates, as well as by all, who have been its enemies and opponents. If the clause, “to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for the common defence or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government.”

And finally, from the Fourth Annals of Congress, James Madison clearly stated, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

It is clear that our founders intended that our government be one of limited powers, with those powers clearly defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is only because the people tolerate the continued increase in the size and scope of government combined with the liberal interpretation by the courts of the three aforementioned clauses that our government has been able to usurp powers far beyond those intended by the framers of the Constitution.

Which brings us now to the judicial branch of the government, the final arbiters of all things Constitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial, basing its rulings solely upon the letter of the law. If you honestly believe that the Court is impartial, or unbiased, then you must read what follows.

Why is it that the majority of the Courts rulings are divided along the lines of Justices chosen by Democrats, and those chosen by Republicans IF the law alone is what their decisions are based upon? Why is it that such importance is placed upon which party holds the presidency when it comes time to nominate new Supreme Court Justices if the law alone is what forms the basis of their rulings?

In 1905 the Supreme Court case of South Carolina v. United States, the Court ruled that “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black is quoted as saying, “Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blowing by each successive political wind.” Furthermore, in a 1969 interview, Justice Black stated, ” I believe the Court has no power to add to or subtract from the procedures set forth by the founders…I shall not at any time surrender my belief that the document itself should be our guide, not our own concept of what is fair, decent, and right.”

From his Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph Story states, “The friends of the constitution, in answer to these suggestions, replied, that they were founded in false reasoning, or a misconception of fact. In the first place, there was nothing in the plan, which directly empowered the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution…”

The duty of the Supreme Court is to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution, or infringe upon our unalienable rights. If a right says shall not be infringed, it means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! From a lecture given at the New York University School of Law, James Madison stated, “It is my belief that there are “absolutes” in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be “absolutes.””

In the case of State v. Board of Examiners, the Court ruled, “Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”

Thomas Jefferson warned us of the dangers of the judiciary when he said, “If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … ”

In fact, Jefferson’s distrust of them led him to say, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …”

In the case of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court states, “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition.”

Next, there is one other statement I would like for you to read, a quote taken from Sandra Day O’Conner’s dissent in the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, “The Court’s definition of economic activity is breathtaking. It defines as economic any activity involving the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. And it appears to reason that when an interstate market for a commodity exists, regulating the intrastate manufacture or possession of that commodity is constitutional either because that intrastate activity is itself economic, or because regulating it is a rational part of regulating its market.” Justice O’Conner bemoaned the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause to include any activity involving the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities, a clear misrepresentation of what the founders intended, and part of the reason the Obama Health Care Bill was upheld by the current Supreme Court.

Finally, there is one last quote that I would like for you to read, and it is of the utmost importance that you understand its implications. From the case of State v. Sutton, we read, “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, as stated in the case of US v Minker, “Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.”

Now, consider this, in Federalist 15, Alexander Hamilton stated, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.” However, what are we to do, as citizens, when the body of men and women elected to enact, and uphold the law disregard the law which governs their actions? What is our recourse as citizens when unconstitutional mandates are imposed upon us, when our rights are violated at every turn? Not to condone what Hamilton says, but in Federalist 15 he goes on to say that, “This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms.”

However, there is another way, a way which does not involve the taking up of arms. From Federalist 78 we read, “There is no position, which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission, under which it is exercised, is void.”

From Federalist 49 we read, “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.”

Before I close, there are two final quotes I would like for you to consider. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

Also, Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas once stated, “These examples and many others demonstrate an alarming trend whereby the privacy and dignity of our citizens is being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen — a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of man’s life at will.”

I hope, by now, I have made it clear that our government no longer abides by the law created to govern it and that we the people are suffering from oppression because we have not educated ourselves as to government’s true function. In 1850 Frederic Bastiat wrote a short booklet entitled The Law, from which I quote the following, “But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect.”

In Federalist 37, James Madison states, “It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it.”

If our nation is to survive as was intended by the framers of our Constitution, then we must put aside the petty differences between political parties and, as George Washington said, let the Constitution be our guide. Otherwise the outcome will be increased governmental powers and a decrease in our ability to freely exercise our rights. There is no other alternative!

If things continue on their current path, I see no other alternative but the one described by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers…”

You may not agree with me, but as I stated in the beginning, I have provided you with ample facts to support my position, and as John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Now I ask that you ponder the things I have said, and if you disagree, prove me wrong! Provide your own facts to support YOUR position, but DO NOT let your emotions dictate your words. No matter what YOU THINK the government is supposed to do for you is irrelevant. Provide me with incontrovertible proof that your position is correct and mine is flawed. If you can’t do this, then you are just as much a part of the problem in this country as is our corrupt government.

This may very well be my last article for a very long time. As the old saying goes, I have shot my wad. If I have not gotten my point across with this, then what the hell’s the use. Either people will get it, or their heads are buried too far in the sand for there to be any hope for them. I will just draft one last article which states, “I told you this was going to happen but you wouldn’t listen.” However, until then, unless something really pisses me off enough to get behind this keyboard, I’m gonna sit back and watch the world turn to shit and stock up on food supplies and ammo. God be with you all.

I rest my case…

July 1, 2012

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com.

If you wish to comment, please go to Neal’s blog so that others may partake of your wit and your wisdom as well… http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal