Essay # 2 on the U.S. Constitution
Patriot
Last comment by shapechanger 1 year, 5 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

Essay #2 on the U.S. Constitution

When the U.S. Constitution was written, Our Founding Fathers gave Congress ; the Legislative Branch; the excusive power to make law . The other two Branches have no Constitutional power to make law.

The Founding Fathers limited the ability to make laws, that citizens, “We The People”, must follow, to Congress, because it is the only Branch of Government where the people have representation, in the House of Representatives. The President is elected by the Electoral College not the people. The Supreme Court is appointed not elected by the people, and the Senators were elected by the States’ Legislature.

The Congress was split into two Houses. The first was the House of Representatives that would focus on the needs of the people. A member of the House of Representatives was elected by the people living in the Congressional District. The Congressman became their Representative in the Federal Government. The House of Representatives is the only place where “We The People are represented in the Federal Government.

The other House of Congress was the Senate. The Senate was to be the protector of State Sovereignty, or as it has become known today “States’ Rights”. The Founding Document of our country, The Declaration of Independence , states the following in it’s last paragraph “ We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the States of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

This country was founded as Thirteen Independent and Sovereign States. Our country operated under the Articles of Confederation as Independent Sovereign States. They were so Independent that the Federal Government could not do much of anything. In order to solve the problem of a weak Federal Government, the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia to solve the problem. The Great Compromise agreed to in Philadelphia, was how our Founding Fathers solved the problem of maintaining the Independent Sovereignty of each State, while giving more power to the Federal Government, so it could function and do those things necessary, in the name of all the States. Common currency, maintaining an Army and Navy to protect all the States and so on , were outlined in the Constitution in Article I section 8. Those things are specific and limited to insure that the States had more power affecting the day to day lives of the people, than the Federal Government. All of the Original Thirteen Independent States ratified this compact , the Constitution, with the new Federal Government. The Independent States can change or remove any or all powers they lent to the Federal Government, by the Legislatures of two thirds of the States voting for a Constitutional Convention as outlined in Article V in the Constitution. The Federal Government gets it’s power from the Independent States, not the other way around as most Americans believe today.

The Constitution outlined what Sovereign Powers the States were willing to delegate to a Federal Government. and allow the Federal government, to do, for the common good of all the Independent States. The Founding Fathers put in the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights to protect the Sovereign Powers of the Independent States, not delegated to the Federal Government. The Tenth Amendment was to insure that the Federal Government did not over step it’s authority granted to it by the Independent States. The Senate was to be the protector of the Tenth Amendment, States Rights. The Senate was to insure that any law passed by the Federal Government was Constitutional and did not violate the Tenth Amendment. Here is what the Tenth Amendment says “ The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.“.

The Great Compromise gave each State two Senators regardless of the land size of the State or the size of it’s population. This Great Compromise was to protect the States Sovereignty. Any bill passed in the House of Representatives that was unconstitutional, thus violating the Tenth Amendment, could be voted down in the Senate. This was part of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers believed in. Senators were Representatives of their State and were to be the protectors of their States’ Sovereignty. They were not elected by the people of that State. They were elected by the State Legislature. The Constitution in Article I Section 3 states “ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State [ chosen by the Legislature ] thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.” No one today understands this concept set up by our Founding Fathers because it was all changed by the Democrat Woodrow Wilson Administration in 1913. Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats got the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution passed. Senators are now elected by the people of the State not the State Legislature.

The Democrat Woodrow Wilson Administration was the beginning of the Progressive (Socialist) Movement in our country. With the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators were elected by all the people in a State. It removed a huge part of the Republican (Republic) form of government, with it’s checks and balances established by our Constitution. No longer were Senators protecting the Sovereignty of their State, and insuring that the Federal Government did not pass any law outside of the Limited functions granted to the Federal Government by the States, now Senators are protecting the agenda of the Political Party they belong to. This has destroyed our Republic. The purpose (objective) of The Progressive (Socialist) Movement is to consolidate all power into a Central (Federal) Government. Thus destroying our Republic and our Constitution. They are wining.

Our Founding Fathers got it right the first time, and the Seventeenth Amendment must be repealed back to the original intent found in the Constitution. Obamacare would never have been passed in the Senate prior to 1913. It violates the Constitution , the Tenth Amendment, and State Sovereignty in a dozen different ways.

Finally, our children deserve to know the truth about how our Founding Fathers set up our government under the Constitution, so they too will have the opportunity to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness guaranteed by our Founding Document “The Declaration of Independence” , which also states that our Rights come from God not government. The bastardization of our Constitution by the supporters of the Progressive Movement must be reversed or we will have a President who is a dictator, and he will be only loyal to the agenda of his Party. There will be no more checks and balances left in our government against the consolidation of power into the Federal Executive Branch.


Latest Activity: Jan 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by Ironside
Send Ironside a Message
Report Inappropriate Content


Blog has been viewed (630) times.

Bryant commented on Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 17:58 PM

Since when does direct election constitute a movement to a socialist government? Are you just mad that the Federal government is not as Republican as the Georgia legislature?

I will say, you gotta hand it to those Progressives, passing an amendment way back in 1913 just so Obamacare could pass. That's some long range planning!

Ironside commented on Thursday, Jan 17, 2013 at 20:54 PM

The Progressive movement is against our Constitution that set up a Republic, Republican form of Government, with many checks and balances to protect against the consolidation of power in fewer and fewer people. Progressives want a Socialist Government ( Their leader supported by Progressives as the ruling class) and their passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments during the Woodrow Wilson Administration set them up for a lot that would happen during the FDR Administration with so many Socialist Programs including Social Security. Senators during the FDR Administration were loyal to the Agenda of the Democrat Party. Democrats had the majority in the Senate. Had there not been the passage of the 17th Amendment Senators would have been protecting their State's Sovereignty and the 10th Amendment (State Rights) and would not have allowed FDR to push through Federal Social Programs. Instead they would have said that Social Programs are States Rights business and the States could pass what they felt were needed but not the Federal Government.

Look up the definition of Progressive. Progressive means to progress over a long period of time towards support of Socialism.. Their steady march towards making the U.S. a Socialist State continues with this President who told (Joe the Plummer) "We need to re-distribute the wealth”. That statement is as Socialist as it gets.

Bryant commented on Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Seems to me that the Progressive movement (and once again I write, whatever that is) operates within the Constitution, not against it. You may disagree with some of the results such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but the way they were enacted was constitutional.

And I found no reference to Socialism in the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary in the definition of "progressive". The first three definitions were: "of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression".

And you may maintain that Wilson was a socialist masquerading as a Progressive hiding behind the facade of a Democrat, but he was also a racist, imperialistic jackass beholding to corporate financial interests (particularly those vested in Central and South American fruit harvests). He was responsible for the segregation of the Civil Service and the military during his administration and could easily be credited for setting back equal rights for blacks by 40 - 50 years. Not very progressive I think.

theflyonthewall commented on Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 15:43 PM

Ironside,
If you expect to win your argument, you cannot play fast and loose with history --- or logic.For example,members of the Progressive Movement( a very robust reform movement) included Teddy Rooseveldt and Herbert Hoover-- both good men and both Republicans.The Progressive movement was responsible for child labor laws, pure food and drug laws,corruption busting in government and business,and the conservation movement among many, many notable and farseeing improvements to American society.I don't think anyone of any political persuasion would be able to castigate them for their achievements given the facts.

You also cannot conflate progressives, liberals, and socialists into one group because obviously they are not all the same.Words have meanings and should be used carefully. I suspect that the word socialist in this essay is being used as the universal pejorative ,which is intellectually dishonest.

I also fail to see why the direct election of senators is a bad thing.Would you like someone to choose for you?

Finally, we have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party,an and ic being adjective forms.We do not have a Democrat Party, despite the rather ham-handed efforts of some to suggest that the Democratic Party does not concern itself with democracy and is ,therefore, not democratic.

Ironside commented on Friday, Jan 18, 2013 at 16:06 PM

I share your distain for Woodrow Wilson. He also set up the Federal Reserve Bank a private insurance system for all the big Wall Street and European Banks using the American tax payers as the insurance policy, to bail out the banks whenever they screwed up, like in 2008 when we were told the financial system would collapse without a bailout by the tax payers. All because of the Federal Government's housing scheme with Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae that collapsed the housing market. Wilson was a Democrat.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare just to name a few, have no legal or Constitutional support because the Independent States did not delegate any social programs to the Federal Government. There were no social bailouts by the Federal Government prior to FDR. Taking care of the social needs was an individual, town and community, an finally State Government responsibility in that order, never the Federal Government. Article I section 8 does not list Health Care. The States provided disaster relief when floods and other natural problems happened. But the relief was temporary, to get the people back on their feet working again, not like the life long Federal Government support given today with no expectation of anyone ever needing to get off the relief. State support is temporary, Federal support is generational. Huge difference!

Bryant commented on Saturday, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Ironside, there are no life long Federal government support program available of which I am aware (unless you're talking about Social Security disability benefits). Most welfare programs are administered by the states with the preponderance of the funding coming from the Feds.

And while poverty is in many cases generational, I think it's more a function of lack of education, lack of opportunity tied to education, and - somewhat - a person's immediate societal norms. Name me two generational Federal welfare programs which you feel encourage people to be lazy, shiftless, and more desirous of remaining poor on the government dole rather than self-supporting.

Charles_and_Angie_Howell commented on Saturday, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Bryant, Charlie.

I will not debate the state/federal role in welfare, but I will argue that long term welfare dependence leads to complete dependence on the 'government'. Welfare dependence sucks the initiative and drive right out of people because they have ZERO incentive to work when the government will not allow them or their babies to starve.

My parents were Depression Era kids. Starving WAS an option, however unpleasant that may seem. Nobody gave them a damn thing, they worked to eat.

Charles_and_Angie_Howell commented on Saturday, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Forgot the most important part...

Take away the Federal funding and the welfare dries up. Welfare dries up, you WILL see Change in this country....

Probably for the worse at first, but for the better in the long run.

Bryant commented on Monday, Jan 21, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Charlie, Bryant

My parents were also Depression era. But to say take away the Federal funding and welfare dries up is like saying take away the Federal funding and the National Guard dries up.

And I do not defend long term welfare except in those cases of the aged or infirm. Healthy, able bodied people should receive whatever is necessary to keep them from starving. But, they should work for it. I fully support any welfare to work initiatives. They have proven to work in many cases.

Scott Garner commented on Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 at 23:05 PM

Essay #3 On the Constitution: "How To Retroactively Apply Your Existing Belief System To Make a Disingenuous Point"

or

"Oh, the Irony"

shapechanger commented on Sunday, Feb 24, 2013 at 14:56 PM

In your essay there are several points that do not match up with the facts. First Wilson and the Democrats did not get the 17th Amendment passed. It would have required a Constitutional Congress and two thirds of the states approving of the 17th Amendment. This was set up so that a minority could not dictate to the majority. By definition a Democratic form of government is majority rule. Minority rule is generally a dictatorship. Additionally the founding fathers formed a Republic and not a Republican form of government. The values of the Republican party have changed over the years and in particular the Republican party of the early years bears no resemblance the Republican party of today. While Senators were originally elected by state legislators, we must remember that the state legislators were elected by the people. One could say that the 17th Amendment removed the middle man and a chance for outside influence over who the Senators would be and protect the voice of the people. Today's discussion of "state rights" does not hold much water. I say this because too many times I see business rights trump state rights or individual rights. That is not what the Constitution or the founding fathers intended.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Ironside
 
LA Times is wrong
July 20, 2014
Kansas over the top on gun rights protection. The Los Angeles Times editorial, in Wednesday’s, July 16 newspaper, taking issue with the use of the 10th Amendment of our Constitution to protect 2nd Amendment gun rights, is a classic Leftist argument that is false. The Los Angeles Times stated “The ...
Read More »
 
ISIS finds weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
July 12, 2014
Islamist Terrorist Group ISIS Finds Nuclear Material In Iraq! Yes, ISIS the worst Islamic Terrorist group has found the weapons of mass destruction that we have been told do not exist in Iraq. The London Times has just reported today, July 11, 2014 that ISIS has found nuclear material that ...
Read More »
 
Happy Fourth of July
June 29, 2014
July 4, 1776 a date, that profoundly changed the world! We will once again celebrate July 4, 1776 with cookouts, store sales, parades, and fireworks. Sadly, most Americans do not know the reason why this day is the cornerstone of our founding as a nation. July 4, 1776 is the ...
Read More »
 
Supreme Court Affirms Jesus In America!
May 11, 2014
Supreme Court Affirms Jesus In America In the May 6th newspaper, buried deep on page sixteen, was the most important story in my sixty five years on this earth. The headline of this story was “High court upholds prayers at town council meetings”. The headline should have been “ Supreme ...
Read More »
 
Terrorist Anniversary
April 14, 2014
Terrorist Anniversary We are at the anniversary of the Boston Marathon Massacre. The attackers that day where Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. They had been living among us enjoying the freedom that our country provides us. They were not trying to be “American”, they were training to be al Qaeda terrorists ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology