“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.”—Andrew Jackson
For Day Three of our Honor America Days, we have decided to look into the those areas of responsibility that the Constitution affords the United States government. The major portion of those duties and responsibilities can be found in Article I., Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Let’s examine Article I in more detail. I have added the number of each clause in brackets for clarification.
In evaluating the Constitution, an anti-Federalist who wrote as “Brutus” wrote:
Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.
To begin, we should define exactly what a constitution is. We think of it as the parchment that was signed at the Constitutional Convention. A constitution is simply a set of laws. It can be written or unwritten. In a despotic government, they are rarely written down. One might consider the example of Genghis Khan. He was, certainly, a despot who made the rules, but he did consider the words of his advisers. I’m now sure that he wrote down a consistent set of “laws,” but what he did set down in the form of rules was certainly obeyed by the people. Not only because of his powerful position, but what he did benefited all of the people. The point is that whatever he did write—I’m sure he made certain decrees—or say became law, or the constitution. His people knew that whatever he did, though, benefited them as a whole and he was able to combine together a host of nomadic tribes into a powerful force. Despotism, in general, is not so benevolent a form of government as we can see by the despotic rule of Lenin and Stalin.
In a monarchy, a King or Prince makes the constitution by decree. In the time of the American Revolution, King George III operation under a Constitutional Monarchy where certain limitations were imposed upon his power and he had to deal with a Parliament. The colonists were quite satisfied to operate under that rule. After the King and the bankers of England discovered that colonial prosperity was based on the printing of their own colonial script, they made laws against the colonies printing their own money. That led to unemployment and dissatisfaction in the colonies which, ultimately, led to the War of Independence, as we will learn.
The idea is that a constitution is nothing more than a set of laws whether written or unwritten that a society is expected to obey. After the War of Independence, our founding fathers wrote down our basic set of laws, after considerable and careful debate, in the Constitution of the United States of America.
After it was written down, there was so much debate that they decided that the addition of thirteen amendments were necessary to ensure the newly gained liberties and freedoms. Ten of those were eventually added and are collectively known as the inalienable Bill of Rights. They were “incorporated” to the States by the signing of the Constitution and it was understood that these basic rights would not be tampered with or hampered by any future piece of legislation or Supreme Court decision.
It was important that they define exact duties of the the government and the relationship between the central government and the governments of the newly formed States of the United States. When you have three lawyers at lunch, though, you will inevitably find an argument over the legal definition of a cheese sandwich based on their desires and ambitions. Twisting legal concepts to fulfill those ambitions, the needs of their clients and repayments for favors of large corporations has caused the weakening of our Constitution.
Although this article is wholly inadequate to the task, we hope to give you some education on what those specific powers and limitations are on our governments and what your rights actually are.
Article I.
Section. 8.
[1] The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
This first duty is one that caused much concern among the anti-Federalists—those opposed to the Constitution. Notice that the one restriction here is that taxes shall be uniform throughout the United States. All taxes must be equal throughout the United States, including Income tax. It leaves no room for a “heavy and graduated Income tax.” On this particular subject, Brutus wrote:
The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please.
It further insinuates that State Legislatures would not be able to stop them nor tax in the areas reserved to Congress. State Legislatures would have to derive taxes from another source. Section 7, Clause 1 provides that, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” If you study the Constitution, the only interference that the public had in political life was the election of their direct representatives to the House. Senators were chosen by the legislatures of the various States and the President was chosen by the Electoral College. Although people voted for the President, it was more of a guide and the Electoral College is not obligated to vote except where State law intervenes. In fact, the popular vote for President was not even considered until the election of Andrew Jackson. Section 7 was instilled in the Constitution, I believe, so that they were responsible to the People. If they instituted undesirable taxes, they could be voted out. Davy Crockett had a run in on this very topic.
[2] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
This is one of the duties of Congress that they have given up to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Act in 1913 was written by a group of bankers. It is one of the institutions that Woodrow Wilson installed and was reputed to be remorseful over. In fact, it is the only thing in his presidency that he was, apparently, remorseful over. This clause works in conjunction with Clause 5. We will explain more about this in Clause 5.
[3] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This is the infamous “Interstate Commerce Clause.” The Supreme Court in 1824, under Chief Justice John Marshall, broadened the definition of this clause so that the Congress could get away with anything that might possibly cross a state line in the name of commerce. You will notice that the recent health care bill provides for insurance companies to sell across state lines. That is the only way the Congress could justify passing this bill.
Could “Brutus” have been warning about just such an event when he wrote in his first anti-Federalist paper:
It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government.—Brutus, Anti-Federalist Papers
In A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle, LL.D. wrote in Chapter X:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
Interestingly, he does seem agreeable with the Marshall decision in Chapter IX of this work. This seems an inconsistency. If we can rightly apply that logic to the Second Amendment—which we can, why can we not apply that same logic to all of the Bill of Rights?
For example, the Internet extends across State lines—indeed International Borders. Now the federal government does have the duty to regulate international trade. Thus, they could shut off the Internet signals from other countries. May they, however, shut off the signals from one state to another, as they intend to do with legislation such as the Cyber Security Domestic Preparedness Act (H. R. 4507) and the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773), among others. Does that not interfere with the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment?
[4] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
With the recent Arizona law that ten states, or more, are copying, this is a very topical subject.
The Founding Fathers, as they are so-often called, had strong feelings about immigration. We do not hear the democrats or Republicans quoting them on the subject of immigration very often. The Naturalization act of 1790 was the first immigration law later refined by The Naturalization Act of 1795. The refined version has emphasis in certain areas which reflect the feelings of the founding fathers on immigration.
[5] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
In Chapter XXV. of Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. III, INCIDENTAL POWERS — NATIONAL BANK., Joseph Story observes:
§ 1254. ONE of the earliest and most important measures, which gave rise to a question of constitutional power, was the act chartering the bank of the United States in 1791. That question has often since been discussed; and though the measure has been repeatedly sanctioned by congress, by the executive, and by the judiciary, and has obtained the like favour in a great majority of the states, yet it is, up to this very hour, still debated upon constitutional grounds, as if it were still new, and untried. It is impossible, at this time, to treat it, as an open question, unless the constitution is for ever to remain an unsettled text, possessing no permanent attributes, and incapable of having any ascertained sense; varying with every change of doctrine, and of party; and delivered over to interminable doubts. If the constitution is to be only, what the administration of the day may wish it to be; and is to assume any, and all shapes, which may suit the opinions and theories of public men, as they successively direct the public councils, it will be difficult, indeed, to ascertain, what its real value is. It cannot possess either certainty, or uniformity, or safety. It will be one thing to-day, and another thing to-morrow, and again another thing on each succeeding day. The past will furnish no guide, and the future no security. It will be the reverse of a law; and entail upon the country the curse of that miserable servitude, so much abhorred and denounced, where all is vague and uncertain in the fundamentals of government.
According to the book Citadels of Chaos, Meyer Amschel Rothschild is quoted as saying, “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” That attitude is precisely why the founding fathers added this—and Clause 1—-Constitution.
There seems to be some question about the term “coin money.” The term does not mean make coins. I means to bring a form of exchange into existence. Those coins, however, were either made of—or backed by—Gold and Silver. Especially paper money. According to the government, paper currency is a form of legal tender. That is, they are valid means of payment for debts owed and cannot be refused.
At the time, however, that money was backed by some form of valuable metal and could even be exchanged for that metal. Today our currency is backed by absolutely nothing but the faith and credit of the United States. Recent events should have taught us the error of our ways.
However, there was a time when our currency was backed solely by nothing but work. At a time when we were under the rule of King George III.
Chapter Three of the Citadels of Chaos offers an alternative explanation for the War of Independence.
When Benjamin Franklin made a visit to his native England he was asked how he accounted for the prosperous condition of the Colonies. He said, “That is simple. It is only because in the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called ‘Colonial Script’—and we issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry.” This circulating medium, Colonial Script, was printed by the Governors of the various Colonies and brought an adequate purchasing power for the abundance of produce and goods that was available now that they had their newly-cleared fields producing.
Something had to be done about this prosperity. It was bringing prosperity to the wrong people. Foreign financiers could no longer loan the Colonies their currency as long as they were keeping plenty of good Colonial money in circulation. So they had to get rid of it somehow.
When the colonies agitated for the right to make a fiduciary issue of paper money, the British Parliament countered in 1751 by passing an act prohibiting an issue of paper money in New York, and this was later extended to other colonies. Benjamin Franklin said, “On the slight complaint of a few Virginia merchants, the colonies had been restrained from making paper money which had become absolutely necessary for their internal commerce from the constant remittance of their gold and silver to Britain.” The English financiers knew that as long as Americans could not get out of debt they could continue to draw steady and permanent dividends from their American investments—a policy in practice today, for the only way we can get more money is by increasing our debts on which the international Bankers draw interest. Franklin complained that the result of the early practice was that “the whole of American wealth centers finally among the merchants and inhabitants of Great Britain.”
The purpose of the Bill of 1751 was to restrain Colonial Script and give the authority of law to the King’s instructions on currency. The financial powers with Parliament as their tool tried by law to control the Colonies by controlling the issuance of their money in giving the King this dictatorial power. Thus the original charters by which each colony was given authority to issue its own money were not renewed after the date on which they expired. The colonies could no longer issue their own money. Furthermore, they were not allowed to trade with any country but England, but what was far worse, they had to pay England in the metallic currency of their territories called specie. Here was the plot: drain all the specie out of the American possessions so they would have to borrow from the Bank of England. That was economic slavery and the freedom-loving colonies were not disposed to tolerate it.
When this plot failed, the British began a series of repressive measures against the colonies denying rights long enjoyed, arrogantly usurping authority and imposing revenues and large emoluments attached to all offices. Some wanted to obtain revenues from the Post Office by issuing a general Stamp Act for Americans. But these Americans of whom they knew little and cared less refused to be governed by prerogative. The British sent a special appointee to the governorship of New York for one last great effort. This offensive character asked that the Colonial Assembly, “consider without delay a proper law for a permanent revenue, solid, definite and without limitations.” He asked that these requirements be met. The Assembly refused. That was the beginning of the break between the British Government and the Colonies.
While the colonies objected to other oppressive measures on principle, it was the withdrawing of their money (Colonial Script and species) … that made them particularly rebellious because they knew that such a policy was equal to taking away their freedom, their independence and their prosperity. It was because their circulating medium was reduced and they were paying tribute to the Rothschild Bank that was the original and fundamental cause of the dissatisfactions which led to the Revolutionary War.
George III of England was not oppressive and was probably the least tyrannical of the 18th century monarchs; the tax burden was not excessive, in fact, even with the tax on tea they product was more cheaply bought from England than elsewhere; (our textbooks stress Tea Parties, not money) the American standard of living was unsurpassed; the demand for freedom does not diminish the truth that the colonists had a greater measure of self-government than their relatives in Europe; the American leaders such as Washington, Laurens and Dickington were men of propriety, piety and property which radically distinguished them from other revolutionary leaders of history. Thus the ordinary elements of revolt are not to be found. The plain and simple reasons stem from the fundamental injustice of … disastrous measures of finance inflicted then, as now, by those Giants of Greed—the private bankers. Franklin knew, for he said:
“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”
[6] To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
This they do under the careful guidance of the Federal Reserve banker cabal.
[7] To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
This is self-explanatory. The government was to establish a Federal Post Office and designate the routes that the mail was to take. Benjamin Franklin, as Deputy Postmaster General, made many improvements in the service including the routes which allowed an increase in the service.
One step over the line, however, is the fact that the government feels that it has the right to open your mail anytime they want despite the Fourth Amendment. They have even taken to regulating alternate means of posting mail under the guise of the “Interstate Commerce Clauses.” One of the complaints about the movement of mail in the colonies was just that. The British government representatives could intercept and open any mail they chose. I do not know of any complaints concerning keeping negotiable notes or cash.
[8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To promote the Progress of Science is a very interesting topic. Today, of course, we have the National Science Foundation. This is a Constitutionally mandated foundation. However, the idea of science has changed from one of determining how God designed the world to one of why there is no God. Only evolutionary theory is sponsored through this foundation. Intelligent designers need not apply. In fact, why take either stance? Why not just say at such-and-such a facility, this experiment was conducted. Here are the parameters of the experiment. These were the results.
Again, the National Endowment for the Artsis mandated under this clause, but what is meant by “useful Arts?” There is a very nice article by Memoria Press. In that article, they observe:
It is a well-known fact that literacy was prevalent in colonial times. “A native of America who cannot read or write,” said John Adams, “is as rare an appearance…as a comet or an earthquake.” It is not nearly as well-known a fact, however, that early Americans with a formal education usually knew several other languages as well as their own.
The typical education of the time began in what we would call the 3rd Grade—at about age eight. Students who actually went to school were required to learn Latin and Greek grammar and, later, to read the Latin historians Tacitus and Livy, the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides, and to translate the Latin poetry of Virgil and Horace. They were expected to know the language well enough to translate from the original into English and back again to the original in another grammatical tense. Classical Education also stressed the seven liberal arts: Latin, logic, rhetoric (the “trivium”), as well as arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (the “quadrivium”).
The founding fathers would not have approved federal funds for a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with human feces as was exhibited in New York some years back. It is questionable that they would have allowed it to even be displayed. It was not the intention of the founding fathers to protect pornography or nearly naked anybodies marching down the street in parade with the First Amendment. A cross on your yard and the gathering of neighbors and friends for a bible study are protected by two parts of the First Amendment, which we shall see later.
Indyweek has an interesting article on the subject of Copyrights. Copyrights have become quite convoluted, but the good thing is that everything on this web site that is written or designed by us—such as this article—is Copyrighted and cannot be used without permission. Of course, we give permission for liberal use of our material provided that it is not for profit. You have to ask the permission of those who own the copyright to the articles that we use from other sources under the fair use clause of the copyright law. Here is the first copyright law as published in the Columbian Centinal. You can use it. The copyright has expired.
The idea of copyrights and patents was to allow the inventor or writer some time to recoup the investment in time and capital necessary to produce products to “progress” the country. They were, indeed, progressives. The difference is what they based their progression on. The progressive mentality that the founding fathers used was to motivate via capitalism.
[9] To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
This was intended as a means of ensuring that federal statutes were enforced. This is an legitimate duty of a Republican government that is following the Republican form of government outlined in the Constitution of the United States. The problem with this clause and the Supreme Court and federal court system, in general, is that they all violate their oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…” by allowing unconstitutional policies to prevail. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft is even credited with initiating the idea of the Sixteenth Amendment, which passed under questionable circumstances, relieve the government of its only limitation of taxation.
[10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
In Federalist Paper No. 42, Madison writes,
“A definition of felonies on the high seas is evidently requisite. Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term, as defined in the codes of the several States, would be as impracticable as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide. It is not precisely the same in any two of the States; and varies in each with every revision of its criminal laws. For the sake of certainty and uniformity, therefore, the power of defining felonies in this case was in every respect necessary and proper.”
It was decided to let the national legislature define piracy and felonies on the high seas, again, for uniformity.
Possibly related articles:
Tags: Arizona, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Democracy, Education, Honor America Days, Republic, Tea Party
Loading ...
