A Prayer For 3-24-2018

Psalm 121: 1-4

Prayer

Psalm 121:1-4

A song of ascents:

If I raise my eyes to the hills,
from where will my help come?

My help comes from Adonai,
the maker of heaven and earth.

He will not let your foot slip —
your guardian is not asleep.

No, the guardian of Isra’el
never slumbers or sleeps.

Psalm 121

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

…shall not be infringed

No-gun zones are arbitrarily designated on public property by local authorities, stripping law-abiding folks of their lawfully owned guns — their natural right to self-defense — and exposing them to terror and death.

What does keep and bear arms mean

 

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

The discussion inevitably ends up pitting the claim for greater protection and security by a large sector of society against the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This debate — and the constitutional issued involved — produces a sense of political vertigo.

The Second Amendment declares, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A quick reading of this amendment would seem to suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is conditioned on the necessity of having a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state.

This has been the interpretation favored by those who have an interest in limiting individual rights in matters related to firearms. This interpretation, of course, upturns the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights, which aims to protect and guarantee individual rights from the “tyranny of the majority”.

If only we knew what the Founding Fathers intended with the Second Amendment!

Well, let’s ask them:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“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, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison

The right to keep and bear arms has more than just the Second Amendment to protect it. By characterizing the right as fundamental and pre-political, the Founders accepted the truism that this right is an extension of the ancient right to self-defense. And the right to defend oneself does not come from the government; it comes from our humanity. It is a natural right.

Who among us, when confronted with the terror of nearly certain annihilation, would concern himself with the niceties of the law? Life itself is at stake. The right to self-defense is a manifestation of the natural instinct for survival, borne in the hearts of all rational people.

But, what of public safety? Why not “common sense” gun laws, like gun-free zones?

No-gun zones are arbitrarily designated on public property by local authorities, stripping law-abiding folks of their lawfully owned guns — their natural right to self-defense — and exposing them to terror and death.

The Constitution does not permit public no-gun zones any more than it does public no-free-speech zones. If the right to keep and bear arms is truly fundamental, the government cannot interfere with it based on geography.

In the final analysis, “gun control is 0% about guns and 100% about control.

 

Keep and Bear logo

 

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

…no law respecting the establishment of religion…

There is nothing in the drafting history of the First Amendment that contradicts the understanding of the appropriate relation between government and religion.

Freedom OF not freedom FROM religion

Congress shall make no law …
-respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
In recent years the Supreme Court has placed the Establishment and the Free Exercise of Religion Clauses in mutual tension, but it was not so for the Framers. None of the Framers believed that a governmental connection to religion was an evil in itself. Rather, many (though not all) opposed an established church because they believed that it was a threat to the free exercise of religion. Their primary goal was to protect free exercise.
Nor did most of the Founding generation believe that government ought to be “untainted” by religion, or ought not to take an interest in furthering the people’s connection to religion. The Northwest Ordinance (1787), which the First Congress reenacted, stated: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
There is nothing in the drafting history of the First Amendment that contradicts the understanding of the appropriate relation between government and religion. In the First Congress, the committee proposal in the House read, “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.”
Leaving the question of establishment to the states does not entail the absence of religious liberty. Even before the incorporation of the religion clauses and without intervention by the federal courts, religious freedom and tolerance had spread throughout the United States.
Most Framers supported religion because it increased virtue among the people, a necessary element for the maintenance of a free republic. Nonetheless, when it came time to speak upon the matter, the Supreme Court preferred to base its conception of the original understanding of the clause on its interpretation of a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut (1802).
Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was interpreted by the Court as the authoritative statement of a “high and impregnable” barrier between church and state, even though this was itself an expansion beyond Jefferson’s own meaning and practice.
The modern view of the Establishment of Religion Clause began with Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing in 1947, where the Court initiated the current separationist approach to the Establishment of Religion Clause. On the way to reaching its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the First Amendment’s proscriptions against establishment to the states. Although there is vigorous debate as to whether the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporate,” or replicate, the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and fastens them on the states, most commentators opine that the Establishment of Religion Clause is the least likely candidate for incorporation.
Which one again brings us back to the argument between original intent of the Founders vs “pragmatism” as practiced by an activist, (and frequently more often), politically correct judiciary.
Rand Paul-Religion quote

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

1st Amendment

These forty-five words encompass the most basic of American rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and the right of petition. But what do those words mean?

1st amendment 001

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These forty-five words encompass the most basic of American rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and the right of petition. But what do those words mean?

The lack of principles that apply across the many categories of First Amendment
analysis, principles that apply to all cases involving human expression, is troubling because the founding fathers seemed to mandate a simple yet consistent treatment of all human expression:
Congress shall make no law …
-respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
abridging the freedom of speech
-or of the press
-or the right of the people to peaceably assemble
and
to petition the Government for redress of grievances
Supreme Court contradictions are not abnormalities in the First Amendment arena. They are the norm. This seems to flow from the apparent swing from deciding cases, not from the standpoint of balancing in favor of inquiry into legislative or regulatory purpose, but pragmatism. Pragmatists believe that the task of establishing such foundations and so validating our beliefs as objective is either impossible or uninteresting, and in either case not worth doing.

The test for knowledge should not be whether it puts us in touch with an ultimate reality (whether scientific, aesthetic, moral, or political), but whether it is useful in helping us to achieve our ends. This pragmatic, “ends justify the means” approach seems to have been the mindset of the Supreme Court for quite some time.

This, in my opinion, has been one of the prime drivers behind our current societal mindset of political correctness.

Political Correctness Infringes on our First Amendment Rights and has become increasingly obvious in our daily lives. Extreme sensitivity to words or conduct that might possibly offend someone that has already taken root on many of our college campuses is rapidly spreading outward to other parts of our society.

For example; the American Bar Association approved a rule that imports the college manias over “inappropriate” speech and “microaggression” into its regulation of professional conduct.

Rule 8.4(g) provides that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to show “discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The rule applies to statements an attorney makes as well as any actions that could be interpreted to “manifest bias.”

Attorneys have an obligation to do their utmost to represent their clients and help them win legal disputes, but now they must also watch what they say and do lest they be reported to the A.B.A. for having manifested “bias.”

That sounds noble, but what the rule actually does is to give aggressive lawyers grounds for action against opponents who deviate from politically correct thought and action.

Even if the rule is intended just as a means of virtue signaling – something increasingly common in businesses and professions that want to avoid the wrath of Social Justice Warriors – it will nevertheless have a chilling effect.
Sadly, the ABA has solved the imaginary problem of attorney “bias” by imposing a rule that is going to stifle freedom of speech. That bodes badly for the legal profession as well as the whole country.
The next few posts will take each individual clause of the 1st amendment and analyze what the intent of the Founders was and how we have strayed from that vision.
Next up:Congress shall make no law …

-respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
tyranny with a happy face

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

The Bill of Rights (including the preamble)

We think of the U.S. Constitution as about rights, but mostly it isn’t.

Bill of Rights

We think of the U.S. Constitution as about rights, but mostly it isn’t. It is about the powers of the federal government that the framers created, and it is a fundamental rule book for the operation of that government.

The 55 (or so, they kept coming and going from Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention summer of 1787) white men who drafted the Constitution didn’t write the Bill of Rights . And most of them opposed including any such section in their document.

As soon as the Constitutional draft was finalized, Madison sent Jefferson a copy for his reaction. Jefferson’s  biggest objection — described in a letter back to Madison — was “the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws and trials by jury.”

Patrick Henry, the preeminent Virginia politician/tactician of the time, conceived a strategy to defeat the draft without directly calling for “no” votes.

So Henry asked his allies to seek a vote that would ratify the Constitution conditionally. The “condition” was the Constitution couldn’t take effect until it was amended to correct its flaws.

The pro-ratification forces immediately realized that a conditional ratification was no ratification at all. Unless at least nine states ratified unconditionally (see Article VII), the first congressional and presidential elections could not be held and the new government could not begin operations and a new convention would have to be called to deal with changes to satisfy the “conditional” ratifications.

And so, a compromise was reached and Americans were given a Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Amendment III

 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Amendment IV

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Amendment V

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Amendment VI

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

Amendment VII

 

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

Amendment VIII

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Amendment IX

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Madison proposed, and pushed through the House, 13 amendments. The Senate killed one of them (interestingly, it would have required the states to respect freedom of religion and expression; Madison argued that it was the most important one on the list). The other 12 were referred to the states for consideration.

After the Senate killed one of Madison’s original 13 amendments, 12 were referred to the states. But the Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Two others failed of ratification, at least for a couple of centuries, and they were the first two on the list as referred to the states.

The long lost First Amendment (you’ll find the text, under “Article the first” on this link) is a mind-numbingly boring provision attempting to regulate how many members of the House there would be and how much population per district until certain thresholds are reached after which different numbers apply.

The long lost Second Amendment was simpler. Congress could not pass a pay raise for its own members that would take effect until after the next election. And that one has a fairly amazing (and very touching) history of its own that you may have missed unless you pay very close attention to the news.

In the blog posts that follow each of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights will be examined.

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

 

ARTICLE – 6 & 7

While Edmund Randolph agreed that the United States was still liable for its obligations, he maintained that the “new Govt” was one of enumerated powers and thus would have only the power given to it by the Constitution.*

Law Books

ARTICLE 6 Supreme Law

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (1)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

ARTICLE VII – Ratification

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington Presidt. and deputy from Virginia

Delaware

  • Geo: Read
  • Gunning Bedford jun
  • John Dickinson
  • Richard Bassett
  • Jaco: Broom

Maryland

  • James McHenry
  • Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
  • Danl. Carroll

Virginia

  • John Blair
  • James Madison Jr.

North Carolina

  • Wm. Blount
  • Richd. Dobbs Spaight
  • Hu Williamson

South Carolina

  • J. Rutledge
  • Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
  • Charles Pinckney
  • Pierce Butler

Georgia

  • William Few
  • Abr Baldwin

New Hampshire

  • John Langdon
  • Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts

  • Nathaniel Gorham
  • rufus King

Connecticut

  • Wm. Saml. Johnson
  • Roger Sherman

New York

  • Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey

  • Wil: Livingston
  • David Brearley
  • Wm. Paterson
  • Jona: Dayton

Pennsylvania

  • B Franklin
  • Thomas Mifflin
  • Robt. Morris
  • Geo. Clymer
  • Thos. FitzSimons
  • Jared Ingersoll
  • James Wilson
  • Gouv Morris

Attest William Jackson, Secretary

(1) Elbridge Gerry objected that the August 21 proposal only gave the new Congress the “power” rather than the obligation to pay back the debt. He feared that this wording would allow Congress to neglect the rightful return on bonds due to the creditor “class of citizens.”

While Edmund Randolph agreed that the United States was still liable for its obligations, he maintained that the “new Govt” was one of enumerated powers and thus would have only the power given to it by the Constitution.* Without an explicit grant of constitutional power, the federal government would be in the strange position of not having the authority to pay off the debts still owed by the country.

Following a motion by Gouverneur Morris on August 25, the Convention changed the clause from a grant of power to Congress to an obligation of the United States. The change was then accepted by the Convention, which split the power to “pay the Debts,” leaving it in Article I, Section 8, from the obligation to uphold “debts” and “Engagements,” moving the latter to Article VI.

*This will be further discussed regarding amendment 10.

Why was the number of states needed to ratify the Constitution different from the number of states needed to revise the Articles of Confederation?

During the Articles of Confederation period all thirteen states were required to make amendments. All states were considered independent and sovereign at this time. Many of these states distrusted central government so in order to create this coalition the amendment process was made in order to make it extremely difficult to change the agreement of power sharing after it was ratified. Congress was only able create foreign policy and could only step in state disputes only if there was a serious issues between states, not within them.

The Articles of Confederation had some serious issues around taxing and revenue generation. Most attempts to amend failed to get all 13 states to agree. They realized the need to allow the Constitution to be amended without requiring every state to agree, since zero amendments passed in six years.

They did believe in majority rule and that the federal government should not have full power (still a lot of distrust of central government) so they changed the requirement from all states to two-thirds of the states in the union.

The Bill of Rights drafted in 1789 and ratified in 1791 is a great example of the success of the newly ratified Constitution. These first ten amendments were a direct result of the power to amend our Constitution and was used to further limit the central authority of the federal government.

Join or die

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

A Prayer For March 17, 2018

LORD
Take what is broken and fix it.

 

Prayer

LORD
Take what is broken and fix it.

In our nation, in our communities, in our systems and infrastructures and government.

In our homes, churches, families and relationships. In our individual souls.

We all harbor brokenness, but there is nothing too big that You cannot overcome it. No situation holds more power over us than You do.

Open our hearts to godly change, and go to work restoring and redeeming and repairing. And Lord, show us our part in the process and equip us to go to work alongside You.

AMEN.

Prayer for the USA

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

ARTICLE V – Amendment

We are approaching a crossroads.

One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to freedom and the chance to once again be proud of these United States.

Which will we choose?

Amending the US Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

When the national government becomes drunk with abuses of power, the states were given the authority to reorganize the government in a manner that preserves the Republic and preserves liberty. Article V of the Constitution gives states the power to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Using an Article V convention, the states can stop the spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and the forfeiture of American sovereignty to the UN.

We are approaching a crossroads.

One path leads to the escalating power of an irresponsible centralized government, ultimately resulting in the financial ruin of generations of Americans. The other path leads to freedom and the chance to once again be proud of these United States.

Which will we choose?

 

Convention of states

 

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

 

ARTICLE IV – STATES

It was a powerful idea because it conveyed a fundamental truth: Government should be based on clearly written laws, consented to by those to be governed by them, and not on the unpredictable will of one man or even a few men.

Original 13 states

Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour,(sic) in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,(sic) but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour (sic) may be due.

Section 3

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. (1)

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

(1) The admission of West Virginia in the midst of a war was an unusual event in the history of our nation. The circumstances of its admission leaves doubt as to whether the granting of statehood to West Virginia had a basis in law.

The original State of Virginia was a state zealously sought by both the Federal Government and the emerging Confederacy prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

Most of the individuals consenting to the creation of West Virginia would later live in and be actively involved in its affairs. The overwhelming majority of individuals voting for the separation lived in that area that was to be torn from the “Old Dominion.”

The dubious constitutional authorization for West Virginia came up often during the debate leading to statehood. Senator Powell of Kentucky questioned whether the Restored Legislature of Virginia represented the will of loyal Virginia.

Out of the 160 counties that comprise the state of Virginia, less than one-fourth have assumed to act for the entire state, even within the boundaries of the new state more than half of the voters have declined to take part in the election. No Senator could pretend to claim that even a 3d part of the people of Virginia ever had anything to do with rendering their assent to the making of this state within the territorial limits of the ancient commonwealth.10

Representative Joseph Segar of Virginia was alone in his delegation opposing West Virginia statehood. He maintained in a House debate that “there is no evidence that the majority of people within the counties which were to compose the new state had ever given its assent to its formation.”11 He called the statehood bill a punitive measure chastening Virginia.

In the same theme Representative James Blaine of Maine argued that “essentially the government of West Virginia was giving permission to the formation of a new state of West Virginia.”12

Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania expressed an opinion held by many.

We may admit West Virginia as a new state, not by virtue of any provision of the constitution, but under an absolute power which the laws of war give us. I shall vote for this bill upon that theory, for I will not stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the constitution for this processing.

Even after West Virginia was admitted to the Union, Senator Davis of Kentucky objected to seating its Senators in the upper house.

“I hold that there is, legally and constitutionally no such state in existence as the state of West Virginia and consequently no senators from such a state. My object is simply to raise a question to be put upon the record, and to have my name as a Senator recorded against the recognition of West Virginia as a state of the United States. I do not believe that the Old Dominion, like a polypus, can be separated into different segments, and each segment become a living constitutional organism in this node. The present state of West Virginia as it has been organized, and as it is seeking representation on the floor of the Senate, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.”

Even President Lincoln had doubts about the legality of admitting West Virginia to the Union.

“We can scarcely dispense with the aid of West Virginia in this struggle, much less can we afford to have her against us, in Congress and in the field. Her brave and good men regard her admission into the union as a matter of life and death. They have been true to the union under many severe trials. The division of a state is dreaded as a precedent but a measure expedient by a war is no precedent for times of peace.

It is said that the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the constitution and secession in favor of the constitution. I believe the admission of West Virginia into the union is expedient.

 Irascible old John Adams enshrined the concept of “a government of laws, not of men,” in the 1780 Massachusetts state constitution, but his words expressed a firm conviction held throughout the 13 colonies in the years leading to the American Revolution.
It was a powerful idea because it conveyed a fundamental truth: Government should be based on clearly written laws, consented to by those to be governed by them, and not on the unpredictable will of one man or even a few men.

John Adams, (as well as many of the other Founding Fathers) would arguably be greatly disturbed at the flaunting of the Constitution for which they gave their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, not only in the creation of West Virginia, but in countless other instances since then where politicians not only to get away with ignoring the law but with continually replacing it with the will of one man called “Mr. President” or a few men called “bureaucrats”?

Red tape

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

Insanity

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” We seem to be making the same decisions getting the same results over and over and over.

Straight jacket

I wrote this a year ago. In 12 months, little has changed.

My generation’s war was Vietnam. At the time we were told that we needed to “fight them over there or we would be fighting them over here”. We were also told that it was a matter of supporting democracy and winning hearts and minds. Eventually, America got tired and walked away.

For the past 40 years we have been involved, in one way or another, in the Middle East. Recently we have been informed that to “defeat ISIS” we have reinserted Army Rangers and a Marine expeditionary unit.

Until we make our borders secure, until we can screen every immigrant, why bother going overseas and killing people who might (big MIGHT) someday come here and hurt our citizens.

We interfere in other peoples affairs when we would not tolerate it in our own neighborhood by a foreign government.

When will Americas government stop being arrogant and thinking we know what is best for everyone else in the world a lot of people will stop hating us as much.

Meanwhile we treat our vets to substandard treatment while shipping millions overseas fixing things that we broke.

TPTB that sell us on the Military Adventurism don’t care about our Marines, Sailors and Soldiers lives, all they care about is either distracting from something or covering their economic behinds.

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying; “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” We seem to be making the same decisions getting the same results over and over and over.

Therefore; by definition, as a nation we are insane.

000000000Big-Brother01

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018

error: Content is protected !!