As the Equalizer Amendment was being crafted, one fact became quite evident: no amendment
can accurately describe its intent in just a few lines. An amendment is nothing more
than short-
Almost everyone in government says that anything that the Supreme Court doesn’t throw out as unconstitutional is constitutional. They say this because they relish power, and they want to have as much as they can get. Power is the currency of politics. But, the Supreme Court, which itself is a part of government and whose appointees are picked by government elites, is also biased in favor of a broad interpretation of the Constitution. Time and again the justices stretch the meaning of every phrase in the Constitution to the limits—way beyond what the people who wrote and ratified the code intended. It’s an elitist’s dream!
The rest of us know better. What the code in the Constitution stands for is what the people who voted to ratify the code thought it stands for—nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise, the founders would not have provided for an amendment process that requires ratification. If the meanings of clauses in the Constitution can be altered by the courts at will, why have an amendment process? It is therefore patently obvious that any legislation that stretches beyond the intentions of those who ratified the Constitution or (in the case of amended portions) those who ratified its amendments is unconstitutional.
How do you know what the intentions of the ratifiers were? That’s easy; you just look at what was written about the intentions during the time leading up to the vote. For the original code in the Constitution you consult the Federalist Papers and other documents of the time to get the more complete meaning of the code. These are the documents that were available to the conventions of the states at the time when they voted for ratification. These documents tell you what was ratified. Anything not supported by these documents is unconstitutional unless it has been superceded by an amendment.
The commerce clause was intended to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation
that had once been permissible. It was intended to reduce restrictions on economic
freedom. Therefore, any federal legislation primarily affecting commerce that in
any way restricts commerce among or within the states is unconstitutional. Obamacare
is unconstitutional. So is Sarbanes-
There are two “general welfare” clauses. The first appears in the preamble, “We the People of the United 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” We note the difference between “provide” and “promote.” This clause says that one of the purposes for ordaining and establishing the Constitution is to provide for the common defense. It does not say that one of the purposes is to provide the general welfare. In addition, while it talks about the purpose of ordaining and establishing the Constitution, the preamble does not itself grant any powers to the federal government. The granting of powers is exclusively covered in the body of the Constitution. Within the body is located the second and only remaining “general welfare” clause: “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.” The only interpretation of this clause that was authoritative at the time of ratification was Madison’s assertion in the Federalist Papers and at the Virginia ratifying convention that the clause was not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax. Note, also, that “welfare of the United States” is not the same as welfare of the people. Throughout the Constitution the writers made careful distinctions between the United States, the individual states, and the people. Therefore, the constitution that was ratified does not grant the federal government the power to provide welfare directly to the people.
Since almost all of the intrusive legislation that has been thrust on us by the elitists
over the last hundred years was permitted by the Supreme Court on the basis of reinterpretations
of the commerce clause and the “general welfare” clauses, almost all of that legislation
is unconstitutional. The legislation is the product of elitists seeking to impose
their will on the rest of us in a one-
Anyone who tries to claim that legislation is constitutional solely on the basis of judicial precedent, when that legislation is counter to the intentions of those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments, is an elitist. That person clearly seeks to condone pompous illegal behavior on the part of the government, and such behavior is not in the interest of the people.
What about cases in which the intentions of those who ratified the Constitution or
its amendments are not clear: who gets to decide whether an act is or is not constitutional?
Many would say that the Supreme Court is the final authority. Some would say that
each individual state has the right to decide whether it is constitutional or not.
Some would say that each citizen has a right or an obligation to ignore acts that
they think are unconstitutional. They are all correct. Each state has the right to
ignore federal acts that the state considers unconstitutional until such time as
the Supreme Court decides the case. Absent challenges by the states, the time-
To summarize: if it wasn’t ratified, it’s unconstitutional, and we, the people, can impeach any judge who disagrees.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-
Hits On This Page
Sponsors
and
Affiliates
