Tuesday, June 19, 2012

SO, WHAT’S WITH THIS “CONSTITUTION” STUFF?

The purpose of the Constitution, according to its framers (Google each of the 50+ framers to discover their views), was to lay down the principles of a government that was subject to the people and that governed according to their will.

It laid down six functions of this government: to unite the people; to establish justice; to keep the peace (domestic tranquility); to provide for the common defense; to promote the general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty, now and forever.

So how are we doing with these principles?

List the ways, for instance, the current administration, congress and the judiciary are taking steps to unite us as a nation.

Do those ways include opening the borders between the U.S. and Mexico? Is that a unifying action?

How about providing “stimulus” packages for parts of society that cannot figure out how to sustain themselves. Is that unifying the country?

Do you think taking more and more of the money people earn legitimately to fund such projects as the “bridge to nowhere,” Solyndra, General Motors, etc. is uniting the country?

How are the current administration, congress and the judiciary doing with the principle of establishing justice for all?

Is the interjection of the administration into a case involving a neighborhood watch person and a neighborhood intruder before all of the facts are known a part of ensuring that justice is administered?



Maybe you think that providing fire arms to know drug dealers who subsequently use them to murder Americans on U.S. soil is just.

Perhaps the John Corozine case illustrates how well the system is providing justice for all.

In what way is our government ensuring tranquility?

Is tranquility Constitutionally synonymous with peace?

North Korea, if you don’t count the concentration camps, is a tranquil society. It is also a totalitarian state that exists on threat, power and mind control. It that the kind of tranquility we want?

Do you see Occupy Wall Street gangs breaking store windows, overturning cars, tearing down corporations bill boards and defecating in public as tranquil?

What about the constant race-baiting that comes out of Washington DC? Does that ensure domestic tranquility?

Then there’s “provide for the common defense.”

Notice that this is the only phrase in the Constitution that asks the government to do the actual providing.

Also notice that its job is to defend commonly, that is, the whole of the nation, not pockets of internal unrest.

Explain to me how decreasing our military force helps provide for the common defense.

The next principle in the Constitution is the principle of promoting (not providing) the general welfare.

How dose confiscating more and more of the people’s earned income and giving it to people or corporations promote the general welfare?

Do you believe that a person who will not work, if physically and mentally able to do so, should be taken care of by the rest of the citizens of this country?

Perhaps you can opine as to how paying for an illegal alien at the expense of citizens who need those classroom seats, promotes the general welfare.
Does promoting the general welfare include becoming a “Nanny State?”

Does the current administration’s presentation of “Julia” really represent what you want this nation to be? Does it really fit what the Constitution is addressing in the general welfare clause?

“Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.”

The government is now enslaving our posterity to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars in both debt and budget deficits.

Does this ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?

How does taking money from citizens to use to “invest” in doomed so-called “green” corporations help ourselves or our posterity?

“We the people…do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”

When President BO (the child president) proclaimed that the Constitution was flawed because it told what the government cannot do instead of what it must do, he was totally wrong, either out of ignorance or out of willful ignore-ance.

The Preamble tells us exactly what the government is designed to do…no more, no less.

The rest of the Constitution defines the functions of the various branches of our government and places the limits on what it is allowed to do…by design.

Sadly, we have allowed the government, which is supposed to be accountable to us, to usurp powers which were never intended for it, under the liberal “progressive” guise of it being a “living, breathing” document.

It does live, breathe and change, but by the deliberately complicated procedure of the amendment process, not by executive or judicial decree.

There are four bastions of liberty:

1. Respect for the Constitution

2. Respect for Life

3. The smallest possible government

4. Individual responsibility

God help us achieve all four.

27 comments:

Ducky's here said...

"... the principles of a government that was subject to the people and that governed according to their will."
----------
You might want to read Robert Michels and his very effective arguments that this is highly unlikely with the development of political parties.

The contemporary situation seems to favor Michels' views much more than the founders.

Ducky's here said...

Explain to me how decreasing our military force helps provide for the common defense.

----------------
Lowering the defense budget to a lower level that still provides ample defense will lower the deficit or allow for investment in growth which would support a more stable equitable society.

Joe said...

Ducky: "... a lower level that still provides ample defense..."

Aye, that's the rub.

How much of the budget should be allocated to defense?

Answer: An amount that will be able to repel any foreign force that threatens out country.

That might mean a direct attack, such as Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers, or an indirect attack through a middle-man country.

I oppose the concept of world policemanism. But I support the role of the military in preventing a country such as North Korea or Iran from doing what they have vowed is their mission.

Since there are many parts of the budget that simply have no place in the federal budget at all, sustaining a healthy level of military personnel and equipment should be no problem at all.

Ducky's here said...

How much of the budget should be allocated to defense?
-----------------------
The British maintained their empire by spending twice the next largest military budget. Worked pretty well.

Of course calling it defense is inaccurate.

Ducky's here said...

When has Iran ever attacked us?

Craig said...

The next principle in the Constitution is the principle of promoting (not providing) the general welfare.

Art. 1, sect. 8, clause 1,

to pay debts and provide for the common defence, andgeneral welfare of the United States

How can you read that sentence and conclude "provide" applies to one, common defense, and not the other, general welfare? What does the word "and" mean to you?

You can argue enumerated vs. implied powers but not that the Constitution doesn't "provide for the general welfare".

It's an argument (enumerated v. implied)that has gone on since ratification. Probably the best analysis on the general welfare clause is Joseph Story's Commentaries. He served on the Court from 1811 to 1845, so he was close to original argument and the players. I recommend it to a Constitutional Scholar such as yourself. Here is the relevant section.

Answer: An amount that will be able to repel any foreign force that threatens out country.

Agreed. Don't you think it's worth examining what that would require? Repubs love to tell us how throwing money at a problem (education, poverty, unemployment, etc) has only made it worse. Why doesn't that apply to the military. Congress, both parties, routinely allocate money for weapons systems that either don't work or aren't wanted by the Pentagon because they are built in their district. Why do we outsource national defense with no-bid contracts to private contractors? Things the military used to do cheaper.

Why is giving special favors to Republican cronies Haliburton and Blackwater okay but giving a guaranteed loan to Solyndra a scandal? Solyndra accounted for less than 1% of the green energy money and was granted under a program, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed by a Repub congress and signed by W.

Joe said...

Ducky: I figure you must be drunk to ask a question like, "When has Iran ever attacked us?"

You must not have read my comment very closely.

That's becoming a habit with you.

Craig: "Art. 1, sect. 8, clause 1"

Actually, I made no reference to that. I havn't gotten to the body of the Constitution. That will come later.

"Don't you think it's worth examining what that would require?"

I think that's what I said.

"Why is giving special favors to Republican cronies Haliburton and Blackwater okay but giving a guaranteed loan to Solyndra a scandal?"

I never said that.

You liberals don't read very well, do you?

Why, it almost looks like you are just looking for something to contradict to artificially make yourself look better.

Craig said...

Actually, I made no reference to that. I havn't gotten to the body of the Constitution.

From your post,

Notice that this is the only phrase in the Constitution that asks the government to do the actual providing.

When you say 'Constitution' and not 'Preamble' I take it to mean 'Constitution'.

You liberals don't read very well, do you?

I read well enough and I even comprehend some of it. It would help if you knew what you wrote.

Mark said...

They may be able to read well, but it's obvious they missed the entire point of your post, preferring to pick apart small portions of it.

Joe said...

Mark: It's what liberals do. It makes them think higher of themselves.

Ducky's here said...

Ducky: I figure you must be drunk to ask a question like, "When has Iran ever attacked us?"

You must not have read my comment very closely.


------

Tie a can on it you pedant. When has Iran threatened us?

Ducky's here said...

They may be able to read well, but it's obvious they missed the entire point of your post, preferring to pick apart small portions of it.

------
What point was that, Mark. That the Constitution has only one strict interpretation?
Are you that foolish?

Joe said...

Duck, I'm just about ready to do what I've never done before: ban a commenter...you.

The snot dripping from your mind, if not your nose, is getting a little slimy.

Ducky's here said...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

----------

Joe, pardon me if I point out that only a hair splitting sophist would make such a critical distinction between provide and secure.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Duck, I'm just about ready to do what I've never done before: ban a commenter...you.

The snot dripping from your mind, if not your nose, is getting a little slimy."

What did he say that was so offensive?

"Tie a can on it you pedant. When has Iran threatened us?"

Was that it??? Seriously???

Plus, you do realize that on Blogger you can't actually "ban" anyone from commenting.

You can ban EVERYONE from commenting, you can implement a subscription model where only subscribers can comment, or you can Moderate comments which requires you to read and review every comment before deciding whether you will allow it to be posted.

But you can't "ban" Ducky. Or me, or Craig.

Joe said...

XO: Wanna bet?

Darth Bacon said...

And Good Riddance to Barack Hussain Obama!

Darth Bacon said...

Obama is mocking our constitution, liberals like Ducky Here don't read very well, or they refuse too.
In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression in which millions of Americans have lost jobs we can expect even more competition in the employment marketplace, Obama throws 800,000 illegal immigrants who other wise should have been deported into the job market. .
Obama absolutely disrespected, step on and disregarded the United States Constitution. It's all about Obama's winning the election, no matter if he doese it the Right or Wrong way....he disregards the Constitution at every chance he gets to, as long as he gets his way. He really does not appreciate the American way at all.
King Barack Hussein Obama thinks that he gets to invent laws when it suits him..
Are you Libs such Idiots,that you can't understand the meaning of the word illegals ?
And before you say it, It’s Not Racist to kick everyone who does not belong in a country Out

sue hanes said...

Joe - Although I am not for legislating the Right to Life (abortion) - there are other ways to handle that - I think we can't go wrong with your four Bastions of Liberty.

And speaking of Right to Life - does that include the Right to Life for the elderly?

Jus' wondering.

Lisa said...

'And speaking of Right to Life - does that include the Right to Life for the elderly?'

Not to Obama,Sue because he was the one who cut 500 billion from Medicare and that's only the beginning.
Socialists despise the elderly because they are a burden.

Ducky's here said...

And speaking of Right to Life - does that include the Right to Life for the elderly?

-------

Do you mean are we going to pay millions to prolong life a short time when quality of life is gone and you haven't had the decency to draw up a living will to state you don't want any extraordinary means taken?

The answer is no.

Sergeant D Honored Veteran said...

And I just heard that White House (Meaning Obama) has exerted executive
privilege over Fast and Furious documents

A full-blown coverup? You can bet your sweet bippy it is!
Does anyone here remember when Woodward and Bernstein, whose claim to fame is the take down of Richard "Executive Privilege" Nixon and who recently said that there is too much digging around at the current White House? I wonder if they'll get off their pompous leftist butts and delve into the corruption of the Obama administration as much as they did decades ago.
This is Watergate deja vu, the only difference is that Nixon was MAN enough to resign! .
These Socialist SOB'S make me sick.

Lisa said...

and who's going to make that decision Ducky? Katheleen Sebelius?
Those rules can very easily be abused.

But don't take my wordfor it

Joe said...

Ducky: "...are we going to pay millions to prolong life a short time..."

I am quite certain that the like of you do not hold to the value of life like conservatives do.

Life is of value in-and-of-itself, quite apart from its quality.

If Stephen William Hawking wern't so smart, you'd adovocate for his euthanism, I'm sure.

What do you think of HIS quality of life, physically?

Ducky's here said...

Joe, I distinctly wrote that when life expectancy is short and quality of life is severely degraded then a decent human being has a living will with a no resuscitate and no extreme measures clause.

My executors know exactly what my wishes are an it would be my decision.

Don't pull the "respect for life" sophistry.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Life is of value in-and-of-itself, quite apart from its quality."

Maybe for you. Not for me.

I don't want to "live" like Mary Schiavo. Pull the plug and let me die! It's a no brainer. (see what I did there?)

I don't want to bankrupt my daughter by engaging in some "heroic" battle against terminal cancer. Put me in hospice care, dope me up and let me die.

If I've been in a fire and have 3rd degree burns that require years of peeling and scubbing and skin grafts so that I can live the rest of my life as a horribly disfigured recluse because I scare little children when leave the house, don't save me! Let me die! If I won't die on my own, kill me. I won't want to live that way.

If I have to live the rest of my life crapping through a colostomy bag taped to my side under my shirt, I'd rather die and be done with it.

If I have Parkinson's or Altzheimer's and have to rely on family or hired medical staff to perform basic bodily functions, take me out to the woods and shoot me like a dog. Leave me there. It's the merciful thing to do. I don't want to live like that and I don't want my family to have to deal with it.

I don't know why you Christians cling so dearly to your Earthly bodies.

I would think you would be eager to accept what your God has thrown your way and would rush to accept his invitation to "come home" instead of fighting his hospitality with every weapon that secular science can provide while praying fervently to Him asking Him to rescind his invitation.

Your faith does not stand up to close scrutiny. Never has.

Xavier Onassis said...

OOPS! I meant Terri Schiavo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

Don't want to live like her.

I'd probably be OK living like Mary Schiavo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Schiavo