Skip to main content

Trashing the Constitution: More “Change” from DC


Another informative and historical accurate article from the Tenth Amendment Center

The nature of government is to constantly grow and assume more and more power. What we have to realize is the more power the central government takes, the less we have. The Constitution is meant to “chain down” and slow the growth of government…but of course it can’t enforce it’s self.

This article goes on to point out how the various branches of government usurp power…by illegally amending the Constitution. Illegally? Yes.


"Article V of the US Constitution set out the manner in which the document is to be changed for societal/cultural/justice serving reasons.  The text of this article reads:

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."



The Constitution lays out how it is to be changed and any other way is unconstitutional and barred. The article goes on to show how each branch has changed the Constitution.


Executive

The Executive Branch of the Federal Government has two ways in which it breaks the law, first is the “signing statement.”  In this amendment the President signs a constitutional bill duly passed by both houses of Congress, and simply makes a statement as to how he plans on interpreting it to mean something completely different.  This method has a long history of precedents, let me stress that even if the President’s plans would otherwise be in full compliance with the Constitution, it flies in the face of the Supremacy Clause for the President not to enforce legal statutes in the exact vein that they are passed (so long as they are legal).  Another way the President violates the Constitution is though his cabinet.  When the multitudes of cabinets make laws in the form of regulations, this is in violation of the separation of powers (Congress makes all laws). 

Again it does not matter if the laws are otherwise in compliance with the Constitution or not, the very fact that the Executive Branch is legislating is the violation (amendment).  While I am sure there are many other ways the Executive Branch changes the Constitution, this is a good example of what I am talking about.

Legislative

The legislative bodies change the Constitution whenever they pass laws which are direct contraventions of the Constitution.  Alarmingly, I recently heard some federal legislators mention that you cannot make a constitutional argument in Congress anymore.  That is to say when a bill is debated, there is no longer any consideration or mention of the legality or constitutionality of the bill.  They also change the Constitution when they delegate their constitutionally mandated roles outside the legislative branch (think coining money and declaring war).

Judicial

The Judicial branch may be the most profligate abuser of the Constitution in that the concept of “Judicial review” established with Marbury Vs Madison is unconstitutional.  Remember, changing the way the Constitution is interpreted from original intent is an amendment (and requires an action under Article V of the Constitution).  Let me justify that for a minute. Any contract such as the Constitution is binding on all parties involved.  No reasonable legislative body (such as the ratification councils of the states prior to the ratification) would sign a contract (especially one of such import) in which the meaning of words could change significantly over time- thus, textual-ism and legal precedent are both illegal means of interpretation of the Constitution, and for actions justified under such regimes to be legal, amendments would have to be passed for each “change.”



So what to do?


There are a couple of ways in a federalist system to stop the three branches of the government from changing the Constitution.  The most effective is nullification.  With this method, the state governments simply pass a law that states the federal law in question is unconstitutional, and makes its enforcement within the state limits a crime...The state must stand firm, as the Supreme Court will undoubtedly rule against them. But as Madison said- The Federal Government was not made the final arbiter of their own power, as that would make their judgment, and not the constitution, the law of the land.  There is a common-law concept which states; In a contest between two laws that are equal, the one passed most recently takes priority.

Thus, the Tenth Amendment takes priority in these cases the powers not enumerated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states and the people.  This puts the law on the side of the state government in most cases.



We as sovereign citizens of each state have a very powerful and constitutional way to check the growth of the central government...we just need to reclaim it.

NULLIFICATION

**************************

The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.

 

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."---Thomas Jefferson

 

"That's what governments are for... get in a man's way."---Mal Reynolds Capt. of Serenity, "Firefly-Class" spaceship

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I seem to recall--forget that, I dO recall--that the most prolific by far of all presidents in the matter of "signing statements" was the blessedly departed-from-office George W.(Shrub) Bush. His record is without precedent. I don't know if Obama ever has used signing statements, but I doubt that he has. If he had used any signing statement that rankled the far right (who are always finding ways to be rankled) we would have heard all about it from the throwback pundits of propaganda who rise as one, at any opportunity or even without legitimate opportunity, to knee-jerkedly gig the President.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
I seem to recall--forget that, I dO recall--that the most prolific by far of all presidents in the matter of "signing statements" was the blessedly departed-from-office George W.(Shrub) Bush. His record is without precedent.



No argument from me in principle...except saying Bush was the most prolific and without precedent.

I'm interested in this stuff, so I'll check into it but seems like he was at 800 or so in '06...which is outrageous, but far from the most prolific. The title most likely would either go to FDR or maybe Teddy R...who was well over a thousand during his administration.

In comparison...signing statements were in single digits or teens for most of the presidents prior to TR.

quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
I don't know if Obama ever has used signing statements, but I doubt that he has. If he had used any signing statement that rankled the far right (who are always finding ways to be rankled) we would have heard all about it from the throwback pundits of propaganda who rise as one, at any opportunity or even without legitimate opportunity, to knee-jerkedly gig the President.


Well your memory is not very good...using the signing statement was one of the first things he did after inauguration.

What people need to realize, both Dems and Rep...it's not about the parties or a particular president...it's about the illegal, unconstitutional nature of Washington, DC.

We need to realize there has been a regime change...it's happened gradually for decades under our sleeping noses.

Whether you support the way government operates today...or if you just support it when "your guy" is in office doesn't matter. The plain simple truth is federalism...representative republicanism...with a central government with limited and specific powers laid out in the Constitution no longer exists.
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
He was not in office a year before he had eight signed. Half of the things he has done has had to be overturned due to questions of legality. Pull your rose colored glasses off, he is no better than GW. Hey, but at least he is living up to my expectations!!!!


It is YOU who need to get some sense of proportion and reality into your muddled and demonstrably biased thinking. The first link below shows what an enormous stream of signing statements flowed from the prolific pen of G.W. Bush. It goes on and on and on and on... Bush produced signing statements of a number and at a rate HUGELY in excess of the relatively very low number produced by Obama. The second link is to the comparatively tiny number of signing statements by Obsama. Do try to make some sense in what you post!

THE MASSIVE BUSH LIST:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

THE TINY OBAMA LIST:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/ss2009.htm
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by teyates:
He was not in office a year before he had eight signed. Half of the things he has done has had to be overturned due to questions of legality. Pull your rose colored glasses off, he is no better than GW. Hey, but at least he is living up to my expectations!!!!


It is YOU who need to get some sense of proportion and reality into your muddled and demonstrably biased thinking. The first link below shows what an enormous stream of signing statements flowed from the prolific pen of G.W. Bush. It goes on and on and on and on... Bush produced signing statements of a number and at a rate HUGELY in excess of the relatively very low number produced by Obama. The second link is to the comparatively tiny number of signing statements by Obsama. Do try to make some sense in what you post!

THE MASSIVE BUSH LIST:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

THE TINY OBAMA LIST:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/ss2009.htm



Big picture and the back to the point...The federal government's 3 branches continually change and/or over reach their power.

Every administration...every congress.

8 or 800...it doesn't matter.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
.....signing statements by Obsama. Do try to make some sense in what you post!



Finally something I can agree with that this giant bag of bloated bovine flatulence has written. You finally are learning that your Messiah is probably a Manchurian Candidate. BetterNU, you are truly a legend in your own mind. If they put your brain on a razor blade, it would look like a BB rolling down a four lane highway....you are a lost cause......LOL....you are too dumb to realize that these people are not your friends and are destroying this country in a pace quicker than the previous administration.
Maybe me and Yates can agree on something!! We need jr. and dick, along with the the majority of the congress and supreme court, that we had to turn this country around to the good old days before socialist bammer was elected. I just wander why we elected a bum and liberal party for leaqdership in this country, when we had a wonderful family values leadership in control of our country!!

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×