Essay # 3 U.S. Constitution
Patriot
Last comment by Ironside 1 year, 7 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form





Essay #3 on the U.S. Constitution

Which Branch of the Federal Government has grown the most in the past one hundred years. Is it the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, or the Judicial Branch? The answer is the Executive Branch. It has seen a growth of 80% of the total growth of the Federal Government over the past one hundred years, to the tune of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of employees. This growth in the Federal Government started with the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a committed Progressive/ Socialist. A Progressive is someone who believes in the growth of the Federal Government. Progressives are committed to steady growth of more and more power in the Federal Government, but not just the Federal Government. They are committed to concentrating overwhelming power into the Executive Branch, which will lead to Dictatorial Power in the hands of one person the President. The President will rule by Executive Orders protected by his supporters, both Progressive Democrats and Progressive Republicans, who will become the Ruling Class in our society. This will complete the slow Progressive process to make our government like all others that have come to be in this world. A government with a King, Emperor, Pharaoh, Czar, or some other form of Dictator kept in power by his ruling class of supporters.

This form of government is the nature of mankind. It is the natural course for government to evolve into because of ambitious men who all want more and more power. Our Founding Fathers knew and studied this part of man’s human nature, and it is why they created a Republican form of government, a Republic, with as many checks and balances as possible to divide power among as many Branches of Government and people in those Branches as possible. Three levels of government, Local, State and Federal, three Branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, and two Houses in Congress, House of Representatives and the Senate were designed to separate as much power as possible.

So how have the Progressives been able to consolidate more and more power into the Executive Branch and into the hands of the President. Here is how they have done it. I stated in my Essay #2 that the States are sovereign and Independent. They granted some of their Sovereign power to the Federal Government in a compact called the U.S. Constitution. The limited powers the States granted to the Federal Government are outlined in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. It states “ Congress shall have the power to:”
- lay and collect taxes
- barrow money on the credit of the United States
- regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States
- coin money, regulate the value thereof
- establish Post Offices and Post Roads
- declare War
- raise and support Armies
- provide and maintain a Navy

These are the powers granted to Congress by our Independent States. Congress would manage these powers for the common good of all the States. Notice that it states that CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THESE POWERS not the Executive Branch as it has evolved into the past one hundred years.

Notice too that there is no reference to the following areas in Article I section 8 that our Federal Government does today.
- Department of Education
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Labor
- Department of Energy
- Department of Transportation
- Department of Environmental Protection
- Department of Homeland Security

Each of these Departments have been added to the Executive Branch in the last one hundred years. Each of these Departments allow the Executive Branch to regulate more and more human activity of the American people that it was never granted authority to do by our Independent States. They are not listed in Article I section 8. If our States want the Federal Government to have these powers, they would have to be added to Article I section 8 by a Constitutional Amendment. CONGRESS would then have the legal power to regulate in these areas. They are unconstitutional Departments without an Amendment. Congress did not pass any laws to change Article I section 8 in the Constitution to add these Departments. Constitutional Amendments are required because it is the only legal and Constitutional way to get the Independent States to grant their power under the Tenth Amendment, to add these Departments. It is the only legal way for Congress to make law in these areas. A two thirds vote in both Houses of Congress, a Presidential signature on the law and two thirds of the States Legislatures passing the Constitutional Amendment are required to legally transfer these powers from the States to the Federal Congress. This is why these Departments are violations of the Tenth Amendment.

All of these new Departments were added to the Executive Branch after the Seventeenth Amendment changed how Senators are now elected. Senators were elected by their State Legislature as outlined in Article I section 3 until 1913, when the leader of the Progressive (Socialist) movement Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats got the Seventeenth Amendment passed which changed how Senators are elected. They are now elected by all the people in a State. Senators now are protecting the agenda of the political Party they belong to instead of protecting their States’ Tenth Amendment “States Rights“. This is how the Progressives have slowly changed our Republic consolidating more and more power into the Federal Government and more specifically into the Executive Branch.

Finally, I wrote in my Essay # 1 on the U.S. Constitution that the only Branch of the Federal Government that can make law is the Legislative Branch. This is consistent with Article I section 8 of the Constitution that states again “ Congress shall have the power to:” and then lists the limited powers granted to Congress by our Independent States. Yet, since the Woodrow Wilson’s Presidency more and more law is being written by unelected federal employees in the Executive Branch through these unconstitutional departments. This has consolidated more and more illegal power into the hands of the President. This has been happening with both Democrat and Republican Presidents.

Here is what I am pointing out on this illegal power grab by the Executive Branch with the complicity of the Legislative Branch. Nancy Pelosi told us that “We have to pass the Obamacare law to find out what is in the law” . She was telling the American people what she was doing with this law. She passed a law with a broad outline of what the Democrats (Who are Progressives and Socialists ) wanted to do to our national health care system. Only Democrats voted for Obamacare. The guts of this law, the fine print was not written into the law by Nancy Pelosi at the time she forced the House of Representatives to vote on it. This made it easier to get it passed, because if it were a completely written law, at the time it was voted on, many Democrats would not have voted for it, because the voters would know what the fine print had in store for them, with much higher taxes and 1st Amendment Religious violations ,we are now having to deal with, after the fact. Pelosi wrote and passed a skeleton law and sent it to the President to have his unelected Executive Branch employees in the Department of Health and Human Services write the guts of the law, the fine print that “We the People” must now follow. So who wrote the law? The Executive Branch wrote the law which is illegal and unconstitutional.

What has come to be know as Rules, Regulations, and Implementing instructions, the fine print written by Executive Branch employees and added to our laws after they are passed by Congress, has become commonplace in our law today. In fact the rare exception to this is Congress writing a complete law at the time it is voted on. Anything added to a law passed by Congress makes it a new law. Only Congress has Constitutional power to add things to one of it’s laws, which makes it a new law requiring a new vote. Letting the Executive Branch add things to laws is not legal. Just because this practice has come to be accepted, does not make it right, legal, or Constitutional. I use Obamacare as my example of how the Progressives are consolidating more and more illegal power in the hands of the President, because Pelosi let the cat out of the bag with her statement which describes what both the Democrats and Republican Progressives have been doing for a long time, to our Republic. So who is making the laws “We the People” have to follow. Are they the laws passed by our Representatives in Congress or the laws of “one person” the President and his government employees? One person rule is a Dictatorship and, it does not matter whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican, it should scare the living daylights out of every American.

These additional illegal Departments must be made legal through Constitutional Amendments or done away with. Also, the practice of allowing the Executive Branch to add anything to a law passed by Congress must stop and all laws that have had this done to them, must become null and void. If Congress still wants these laws, it should pass complete new versions of them.

Otherwise we will no longer have a Democratic Republic. Our Federal Government will be a Dictatorship.


Latest Activity: Feb 20, 2013 at 8:01 PM


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


Blog has been viewed (623) times.

shapechanger commented on Sunday, Feb 24, 2013 at 15:39 PM

The department you cited are authorized under Article 1 Section 8 Commerce clause of the constitution. The Federal government has the power to regulate commerce between of the states both with other countries and other states. When we look at what was going on in the mid to late 1700's the we see that there was a population of a few thousand people and thirteen states. At this time the logistics of the areas covered by the departments you cite would have been much simpler.

One of the functions of the Executive branch is to serve as the national administrator. As the complexity of commerce and the needs for uniformity increased the need for compartmentalizing increased. An example: prior to the 1970's ability of a company to transport goods from one side of the country to the other was impossible without breaking many state laws. This was because each state had set rules regarding length, width, height and weight of a truck and trailer combination. When the DOT got involved it established a uniform standard for all truck and trailer combinations. This reduced the time and cost of transporting goods from point "a" to point "b".

Today most complaints about the validity of an agency comes from businesses and their supporters because a rule or regulation reduces profit margins. Our government is supposed to put the needs of the people ahead of the needs of business or other special interests. That seems to be missing from our legislative body over the last thirty years.

Bryant commented on Sunday, Feb 24, 2013 at 19:06 PM

SC, nice post

Bryant

Ironside commented on Sunday, Feb 24, 2013 at 20:12 PM

SC: You cite the Liberal augument for all the expansion of the Federal Government. It is false. If our Independent and Sovereign States wanted the clause you cite in Artcle I section 8 to cover vitually anything as the Liberal Left claims, then there would be no need for the Constitution. The Constitution only gave very limited power to the new Federal Government that the States created. Americans need to understand that States created the Federal Government not the other way around. Furthermore, the States can take back their power they granted to the Federal Government, by two thirds of the State passing a Constitutional Amendment.
1. Our Independent State gave some of their power to a new Federal Government they created. The powers they gave are in Article I section 8 and they all dealt with allowing the Federal Government to regulate in these areas for the common good of all the States. You don't want each of our sovereign State raising it's own Army independent from other States and so on. You don't want each State printing it's own money, and so on. Some things were better done by the (Central) Federal Government for benifit of all the States. As for the words in Article I section 8 " To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and amoung the several States" this clause gave the Federal Government the ability to settle disputs involing commerce between the States because that was the only logical way it could be done. An example of this is the water dispute between Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Water is need to do business in all three States. When the individual States had a dispute between them a way to resolve the dispute was needed. This clause in Article I section 8 was never to be used to regulate health care, because each State can run it's own system under the Tenth Amendment. Just because liberals have been able to use the ignorance (not knowing our Constitution ), suffered by so many of our citizens because the Constitution has been taught less and less the past 70 years in our public schools dominated by liberal thinking educators, does't make it right, legal or Constitutional. Finally, if the Liberals want to regulate our health care, or how we educate our children by using the Federal Government, they MUST get the permission from two thirds of our State thru a Constitutional Amendment to add them to Article I section 8.

shapechanger commented on Monday, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I do agree with the idea that civics in general have been taught less and less over the years. I believe that in recent years it has suffered because it is not part of the No Child Left Behind Test. The idea that liberals have taken advantage of this is false and the NRA is a case in point. Since Clinton left office they have told the American people that every Democratic president was going to abolish the second amendment.

Many people believe that a President can simply by executive order abolish the second amendment. This as you have pointed out is simply false. Many organizations of any political strip have taken advantage of the lack of knowledge of the constitution. It is up to people like us to inform people of the constitution and what it means in our daily lives.

The constitution stands as our guiding document to insure that the rights of all are protected. It is too easy for a minority party to force their will on the masses or for the issue of the day to define our rights going forward. When Social Security was implemented it was as popular as ObamaCare is today and now we cannot live without it.

The commerce portion of Article 1 Section 8 applies to all commerce between states. When the constitution was written I do not think many businesses had branches in multiple states. Times change and yet as my historical research has born out fights between states remain the norm.

Today they happen in the board room, court room before it happens in the legislative halls. Since our country was founded there has always been a battle between people over the proper size of government. When things are going well the battle is going on behind the scenes. When something is unpopular the battle goes main stream. No news here. It does seem that your argument is more about ObamaCare then about the constitution and peoples understanding of it.

If your conversation were simply about the constitution then you would comment about how the left and the right have used the lack of education on constitution to their advantage. I do not agree with all aspects of ObamaCare. Though I will give the man credit for giving the issue of health care more than lip service. Since Nixon that is all any president accomplished, lip service. The issue of the cost of health care is something that will ruin this country and that is something that needs to be dealt with. It is also an issue that is too large for the typical one size fits all solution.

Ironside commented on Monday, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM

SC: You are right to say that both left and right use the lack of eduction and understanding of our Constitution to push foward their agenda. Both Parties have Progessive Liberals. The Republicans refer to them as moderates. Both Parties believe in big government. The difference is each wants to control the government for the benifit of their supporters. This is why the Founding Fathers feared the Party system. The parties would only be interested in satisfying the demands of their supporters rather then what was best for the whole country. The party system would lead to who had the biggest mob of people. That party would become the ruling class. This is why there is so much concern over illegal immigration. Both parties are jocking to have the biggest mob when the dust settles. My brother once told me he voted Republican only because they stole his hard earned money at a slower pace.

shapechanger commented on Monday, Feb 25, 2013 at 13:49 PM

It would seem that some are trying to dumb down the masses. People follow the talking heads and no longer take time to find out for themselves what is true and what is just ideology. It becomes even harder when some of these talking heads attempt to rewrite history to prove their ideology is the only correct one. Ignorance is not bliss. Prior to the 80's we were all Americans, since then we became (ethnic group)-Americans and now we hear about individual/state rights. We continue to be divided and encouraged to fight each other. This keeps us from seeing what is going on behind the curtain. That makes us weaker as a nation. United we stand and divided we fall.

Ironside commented on Monday, Feb 25, 2013 at 15:18 PM

SC: Keep the faith. The Colonist were greatly out numbered, but freedom won out, and it will again.

Charles_and_Angie_Howell commented on Tuesday, Feb 26, 2013 at 07:16 AM

Shapechanger, Charlie.

Have to disagree with on one fine point of history.

"Prior to the 80's we were all Americans, since then we became (ethnic group)-Americans..."

Sorry man, that revoltution took place in the 60's. The 80's has it's faults (greed being the most cited sin), but the "Division of America" was most definitely from 1966-1975.

Peace, man. Down with the pigs. Don't let the Man keep you down. AIM. Black Power. Weathermen. Symbionese army.

Makes me sick to type that drivel.

jvestal commented on Tuesday, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:08 AM

The extreme left AND extreme right have one thing in common.....

Neither are a friend of The Constitution.

Charles_and_Angie_Howell commented on Tuesday, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Amen, jvestal.

Ironside commented on Tuesday, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

jvestal: You hit the nail on the head.
Charles and Angie Howell: Here is something I have kept sence I was in high school in 1963-1967. This was written by my American History teacher in 1967. He was a WWII vet and a great American.

Does This Sound Familiar: In May of 1919 at Dusseldorf, Germany, the Allied Forces obtained a copy of some of the "Communist Rules for Revolution". Fifty years later let us read the Rules , let us pause and think.

A. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superfiecial; destory their ruggedness.

B. Get control of all means of publicity, thereby;

1. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays and other trivialities.
2. Divide the people into hostile groups by contantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.
3.Destroy the people's faith in their leaders by holding them up to contempt, ridicule and obloguy.
4. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
5. By encouraging government extravagance, distory its credit, produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
6. Forment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster lienient and soft attitudes on the part of the government towards such disorders.
7. By specious arguments, cause the breakdown of the old moral virtures, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word.
C. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretex, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.
( This document was found in a houseorgan of a service club in Dusseldorf, Germany in 1919 )

shapechanger commented on Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Charlie, having grown up in a heavy immigrate community(eastern European) during the frame you cite. I never heard anyone refer to themselves as anything other then Americans. The civil rights movement was also strong in the area and even in that they were fighting to have the same rights as the rest of Americans because they were Americans. The ethno-american slag originated in the 80's. After the deaths of the great figures of the 60's (MLK, Kennedy(s), Melcome X)there was a period of loss both in direction and hope that lasted through the 70's. In the 80's divisions became visible and groups began being pitted against each other.

During the civil rights movement of the 60's the struggle was about being inclusive. All groups having the same rights and not one taking rights from another for their own benefit. During the 80's the tone of the conversation changed and if a group tried to share in the benefits the rest had it was painted that if they got the rights your group had you would be giving up your rights. That was a fundamental shift in the perception of our rights.

Ironside commented on Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013 at 18:52 PM

Lenin stated that the communist movement needed millions of useful idiots willing to think they were fighting for just causes. They would march in the streets demanding justice for all. Once they paralized the government and the economy and chaos broke down all law an order, then the the leaders of the communist take overthrow would step foward as the saviors that can put a stop to the riotss and chaos. The people will give them the government power to stop the chaos.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by Ironside
 
GSU's Uniform Change
October 21, 2014
I went to the Idaho and saw the change to GSU's uniforms. The Iconic look of GSU's uniforms is something that should not fall victim to the "Who can come up with the flashiest uniform craze" that many teams are now going to. These teams have lost their identity. GSU's ...
Read More »
 
Why is the Islamic World on Fire.
September 24, 2014
Why is the Islamic World on Fire? I served in the Egyptian Sinai Desert in 1983-1984 and the Gulf War in 1990-91. What I experienced was a part of the world forgotten for hundreds of years by the West suddenly rediscovered by the West because of the need for oil. ...
Read More »
 
Nunn vs. Perdue
August 25, 2014
David Perdue vs. Michelle Nunn Debate The candidates held their first debate laying out their positions for this November’s election. Michelle Nunn portrayed David Purdue as obstructionist who would continue gridlock in Washington. David Perdue stated “If you like what’s going on in Washington, than vote for my opponent. She ...
Read More »
 
GSU vs. Georgia Tech football game
August 15, 2014
Paul Johnson talked about his team and what they would be doing this year in today's paper. Under the title of Five things to watch for when the Yellow Jackets open their season was this: Johnson experimented with the shotgun, including a diamond formation, with his quarterback last season. Johnson ...
Read More »
 
ISIS on the march is history repeating itself,
August 13, 2014
ISIS on the march, is history repeating itself. The history of Islam is what we are witnessing ISIS doing in Iraq. From it’s beginning, Islam has been a very violent religion. Muhammad leads his followers on raids of caravans traveling in the desert beginning in the year 622. He gains ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology