Just Whose Constitution is it?

Just Whose Constitution is it?



The first three words in the Constitution, written in giant, bold letters, are:

We The People...

That had great meaning at a time when royalty and aristocracy ruled the rest of the world. Imagine, a great, new nation of self governing people, without a king, queen, or emperor! Imagine a people who elected their own leaders, and then fired them if they failed the people. Imagine, a government bound by and limited to the authority granted to them by a Constitution of We the People, signed by the creators and ratified by We the People, who would then be both governed by its limited authority, and protected by its limitations. At the time, such a notion was unheard of, and a great adventure for We the people.

However, many of We the People were concerned that their beloved, inalienable rights, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, were not specifically protected in the new Constitution. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were so concerned that radicals might eventually distort and misuse the limited authority granted by the Constitution to enslave the people, that they demanded a Bill of Rights, in the form of the First Ten Amendments, that guaranteed the inalienable rights and freedoms of The People, while further restricting the power of the new government.

All this is history, and the words and thoughts of the Founding Fathers on the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are easily found by anyone interested in the concept of ‘We the People’, and limited government.

So what?

We the People, are now well on our way to ceding our beloved Constitution to the new aristocracy of the Political Class, and their corrupted, highly political, Supreme Court. What was supposed to have been a body of non-partisan, legal protectors of our Constitution and its meaning as written, has evolved into liberal justices deliberately chosen for their willingness to desert their oaths, and reach decisions based on leftist political ideology, rather than on the law, and on the obvious intent of the Founding Fathers. Only the conservative justices who stubbornly adhere to original intent, saved We the People such things as the Second Amendment, and then by only one vote!

I am brought to writing this after recently discovering an astounding piece written by a fellow Hubber, extolling the virtues of a gigantic federal government, confiscation and redistribution of wealth, and a liberal reading of a ‘living (read rubber) constitution’ that has little or no resemblance to the document of ‘We the People’. A 'liberal interpretation' is an excuse to change the Constitution without resorting to the deliberately difficult task of passing an Amendment. Circumventing the amendment process by liberal 'interpretation', is a deliberate attempt to bypass We the People. We should be outraged at this!

Furthermore, in his constitution (no capitalization is deliberate!), We the People have no say at all! In fact, even in his Hub, We the People who oppose his ideas, also have no say, because all dissenting comments are labeled ‘foolishness, idiocy, ignorant, and stupid’, and are immediately deleted.

I’m not at all concerned about this Hubber. He's not the point. But I am very concerned with the prevailing leftist notion that the Constitution no longer belongs to the people, but to the corrupting influence of politicians and liberal justices who pay scant attention to the original intent of the Constitution, and rule instead, on their own, leftist ideology. That notion is becoming widespread among the far left, and it presents a greater danger to our freedoms and our Constitution than all the world’s dictators combined! Only by the slimmest margins, are the conservative justices who decide by actually seeking out and discerning the original intent of We the People’s Constitution, able to keep us afloat. That margin now depends on the whims of one justice, because the four openly liberal justices always rule in favor of leftist ideology, rather than original intent.

That margin could disappear at any time, based on a whim, or the loss of one conservative. In fact, if it is decided by that court that the federal government can order citizens to buy medical insurance, that is tantamount to deciding that federal power is absolute, and We the People will have become subservient.

If We the People ever become convinced that the Constitution belongs to the federal government and to its corrupted liberal courts, rather than to us, and that We the People no longer have any power or say, then the great experiment created by the Founding Fathers will cease to exist.

Dusty (50 Caliber), gave me the following link, which explains the several forms of government, including what the Founding Fathers had intended, and what we have today. It is superb in its simplicity:

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

More by this Author


Comments 145 comments

ThoughtSandwiches profile image

ThoughtSandwiches 5 years ago from Reno, Nevada

Hi Will...as a just-right-of-center member of the Democratic party...I imagine that I would still be considered a lefty by today's polarized political standards. That's OK I guess.

I do believe that the Constitution (capitalization is deliberate)exists for ALL the (We) people and it was a document predicated on compromise...sadly...compromise seems dead in this country.

My political views would probably prove unpopular here so I won't burden anyone with them but I will say that I don't believe a vast Federal bureaucracy (of the left) is good for the country. Neither do I believe that the high-jacking of American politics by vested special interest groups (of the right) are good for the Country (capitalization, again, deliberate)either.

The question becomes how can a document predicated on compromise work when neither side appears willing to compromise? Voted Up and interesting.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"The question becomes how can a document predicated on compromise work when neither side appears willing to compromise?"

But it's not predicated on compromise at all. It makes it very difficult.

It's a document that grants certain powers, guarantees the people's rights and liberties, and sets up the basic rules.

The very nature of the document keeps politicians from easily having their way. In fact, it deliberately makes it very difficult. That is to protect the people and keep the power of government limited.

We should not look to government to tell us what to do or to see to our needs. That is not their purpose, nor domain.


RNMSN profile image

RNMSN 5 years ago from Tucson, Az

I admit to my cynicism and my fear that money and the ones who have it control this country. is it going to take a revolution to put the people back into power? or will that result only in many poor and middle class people dying? interesting


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

Will, I know exactly who you are referring to, and that is interesting to say the least. If he graduated from a brain washing school, they must have some great instructors. Any comment to his hub that even hinted at disagreement with what he said was immediately deleted.

It is really scary that any individual can be this close minded, and unable to even answer a question or debate his opinion.

You are so correct that a great many now feel the Constitution has long outlived its' usefulness and should be done away with. They would much prefer a document that can be changed at the whim of whatever party is currently in power. The "We the People" thing has long been forgotten.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Barb,

Special interests like money and politicians depend on ignorance in their attempt to influence voters.

That's why it's so important for We the People to jealously protect out ultimate protection from such influence...our Constitution!

It belongs to We the people!


ThoughtSandwiches profile image

ThoughtSandwiches 5 years ago from Reno, Nevada

I see your point. My use of the term compromise (which I stand by) has more to do with the creation of the document, itself. Specifically...how to balance small vs. large states, state roles vs. federal roles (picket-fence federalism), the old 3/5 issue, the demand for a strong executive to be balanced by a viligent legislature.

No...compromise was at the heart of the negotiations during that hot summer in 1787 when those 57 men created this beautiful and living document.

You are correct...the document does make it hard for the politicians to impress their wills on each other and the people...thus requiring compromise. That's what I meant by the usage of the term.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, mike,

Again, I mentioned that only as an illustration of where we are as a People, and we are teetering on the brink of losing our power as We the People.

I'm amazed at how many young people being turned out of out indoctrination centers (euphemistically called schools) have no idea that the Constitution is their document, and not the government's!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"My use of the term compromise (which I stand by) has more to do with the creation of the document, itself. "

And there you would be right, and I would be in complete agreement. Thank you for the clarification.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

A well written Hub, Will, some of which I actually agree with, lol. I hope you don't mind me trying to take a couple of lessons from Socrates and ask a few questions of you rather than go into one of my long-winded disertations.

You wrote "In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were so concerned that radicals might eventually distort and misuse the limited authority granted by the Constitution to enslave the people, that they demanded a Bill of Rights, in the form of the First Ten Amendments ..."

This leads me to three questions, with sub-parts. Since you take great stock in talking about our Founding Fathers, 1a) which ones became what were known as "anti-federalists" and opposed the ratification of the Constitution as written without the Bill of Rights? I'll start you off with George Mason, John Hancock, and Patric Henry; 1b) Which ones opposed the ratification of the Constitution after it was promised that a Bill of Rights would be added?

2) Can you point out specific sentences or articles in the Constitution signed by the framers (in other words, before the Bill of Rights) that imply they intened the federal government to be "limited"? I say "imply" because it never specifically says so.

3) Can you explain the apparent contradiction between your statement that " ... Founding Fathers were so concerned that radicals might eventually distort and misuse the limited authority granted by the Constitution ..." and the continuation that says "that they demanded a Bill of Rights,..." The contradiction being that if the initial Constitution already defined government as being "limited" then what was the need for the Bill of Rights?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

My Esoteric,

I have absolutely no intention of indulging you in another of your 'answer my interminable questions, and then answer some more later' pissing contests.

If you don't agree with my points, you are welcome to address them.

If you don't think my premise that the Constitution belongs to We the People is accurate, then prove me wrong.

BTW, if you want to write a Hub, kindly refrain from doing it in the comments section. Use your own site.


dahoglund profile image

dahoglund 5 years ago from Wisconsin Rapids

I think you have covered the major points. Only in the past few years have I been really aware of how far we have drifted from the basics of our system.Much blame probably goes back to the Warren court. The schools apparently don't teach about the constitution and many peole don't really know what it is about, including well educated people. voted up,useful and interesting.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, dahoglund,

I actually had one person tell me that the Constitution was written for the Supreme Court, and it wasn't any of our business because "we shouldn't take the law into our own hands"!

As you can see, the left is intent on convincing us that there was never any intent to limit the size, scope, and power of of the new government. If so, why have a Constitution at all?


SubRon7 profile image

SubRon7 5 years ago from eastern North Dakota

Great hub, Will, I won't try to give a lot of opinion here except to say I agree with 5 justices being conservative, and it being difficult to add an amendment. Things "need" to be hard to change.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Will - I understand why you can't answer, so have it your way. I agree with your main point; the Constitution is, without doubt, "We the People". I also agree that the anit-federalists fought very hard, successfully so, for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights but I don't agree as to your reason why.

As I clearly pointed out in another hub we met on, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution, as signed, that implys that the framers had a "limited" federal government in mind when they crafted the Constitution; that was precisely what all of the hub-bub as about. The Fedeeralists saw the writing on the wall and agreed to add a Bill of Rights after ratification. This they did, one drafted by James Madison of the Federalist Papers fame.

The Anti-federalists had two main problems with the Constitution, it didn't Specify what rights individuals had and it didn't specify what Rights the States have. Madison carefully crafted the first nine amendments so as to specify certain Rights of the People without limiting and the tenth amendment to more clearly state what were State's Rights and what weren't. There is nothing about "limited" government in any of that.

Sorry for the length Will, but when trying to provide the facts, it takes a few words.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Oh, by the way, to answer one of my questions, of all the signers of the Declaration of Independence (59) and Constitution (39) who are generally considered to be the Founding Fathers (you can add George Mason and Patrick Henry, who signed neither), only 7 were against the ratification of the Constitution, as signed. Once the promise was made to add a Bill of Rights, 5 of the anti-federalists supported ratification.

Of the 59 signers of the Declaration, btw, 18 had died by the time the issue came around and 12 apparently didn't actively join the fray, at least according to Wikipedia, my source. The rest of the Founding Fathers supported the Constitution as written.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, SubRon7,

'Things "need" to be hard to change.'

And that's why the left likes to call it a 'living document', that they can 'interpret'.

They know damn well that We the People would never alter the Constitution via an amendment, to suit the left.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I simply don't get your logic. The framers wrote in the ability to make amendments, otherwise you wouldn't have the first ten. Are you saying that "We the People" would only alter the Constitution via an amendment to suit the right, or, they wouldn't alter the Constitution at all.

As to who these "We the People" you keep refering to are. You seem to imply these people were NOT responsible for electing the Political Class you have mentioned before. I am just trying to understand. If they didn't elect them, who did?

Are you trying to tell me that "We the People" aren't responsible for the government they voted into office 112 times for Congress and 56 times for President?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Again, My Esoteric, all your 'arguments' are phrased as loaded questions, and I'm not about to engage you in another of your endless, pissing contest traps.

If you have an actual argument, make it


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Your readers can decide, Will, whether the questions are fair or "loaded" as you say, or, is it you can't stand the answer if you try to answer them; which I really think is the case here.

It is now to the point where I could ask you if one plus one equals two and you would respond I asked you a "loaded" question, sheesh.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

James Madison

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.

- James Madison


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

And of course, the most prophetic of all:

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

— Thomas Jefferson

If the Founding Fathers intended an unfettered and all powerful government without constitutional restrictions, why worry about a liberal Supreme Court abusing the Constitution?

And why talk about the blessings of the people's liberty in the preamble if a restricted government was not intended? :

"We the People, of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

Now, how can the Constitution "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", if it did not also limit the power, size, and scope of government?

The left today absurdly argues that there was no intent by the Founding Fathers to limit the size, power, and scope of government (despite all evidence to the contrary!) because they openly support the notion of an all powerful government.

Now why do you suppose they also want to disarm Americans, and render them helpless?

Hmm?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Will, if 39 of the 67 Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution wanted the kind of "limited" government you describe, why didn't they stick with the original charter of the Constitutional Convention and just fix the Articles of Confederation; the Continental Congress is exactly the limited governmnet you are asking for.

They didn't do that, instead, they created a whole new kind of government with strong central powers to bind the country together. If they wanted a weak, limited federal government, all they had to do was tweak the document already in front of them.

I understand the quotes you offer above, you have to discount Patrick Henry, he was opposed to the Constitution, as written, until Bill of Rights was added which lends credence to the fact that at least he didn't think the Constitution was "limited" at all, but you nevertheless must actually look at the words put down on paper in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. With the sole exception of the 10th Amendment, there isn't a word in the Constitution that taken together, limits its power. At the end of the few lists of enumerated powers is the catch-all clause that says basically that Congress can pass ANY law it needs to, that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, which is necessary to Defend and provide for the General Welfare of this Nation. That is what it says, Will, unless you can show me where it doens't.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 5 years ago

I say, simply read this amazing document. It says it all quite plainly and it is about us. We are the people. Up and awesome Will.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

This says it all

Amendment 10:

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.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Pop!

As you can see, there are those who would twist and deny it, and support an all powerful government without restriction.

Thank God for the Second Amendment.


Dexter Yarbrough profile image

Dexter Yarbrough 5 years ago from United States

Hi Will. The US Constitution, while certainly not a perfect document, was written my brilliant (and flawed to some degree) men. They made it very clear, via this document, that "We The People" have the right, through legislative bodies, to govern this great nation. And when "We The People" seek change, we have the power to exercise such change and demand that a system of checks and balances is working (lately it seems out of whack).

The US Constitution does not belong to the federal government or the courts. It was developed (specifically the Bill of Rights) to insure that we don't have a government that unnecessarily regulates, violates and intimidates us in our personal lives. It belongs to "We The People."

As this nation has grown socially and attempted to right the wrongs it has committed against some of "We The People," the US Constitution, via good and right-thinking people, has expanded to cover these issues.

What "We The People" need is a crash course on the American Revolution and the documents that helped establish this nation, because many have forgotten, were never taught it, have a negative agenda towards it or simply don't care.

Great hub and discussions, Will. Voted up, up and away!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi Dex,

The Founding fathers were indeed flawed men, which is why so many of us firmly believe that there was a Divine, Guiding Hand behind the Constitution. Its truths were so self-evident, that it would eventually doom slavery, not just in the US, but around the world.

But just as there is a Divine Good in the world, there is also an evil presence, determined to destroy We the People, and our Constitution. We must forever stand guard, and not allow our rights and freedoms to vanish in exchange for the false sense of security offered by socialist programs like Obamacare.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Will,

Excellent points and Hub..

@ My Esoteric,

It has always been my impression that the very “liberties” that our forefathers talked about was vital in the construction of our Constitution. It was designed to “safeguard” these liberties that we cherish. That is what makes us unique among all of the other governments in the history of this world. The only way we can assure our freedoms is to have a “limited” government. I think our whole constitution is loaded with “limit”...it has many checks and balances, and the very principals were obtained by our Declaration of Independence that declares us to have certain unalienable Rights, that we are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

George Washington spoke of this “limited” government at his farewell address...

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."

Hamilton basically said that Constitution's “limited government” would have been the same if “Bill of Rights” had never been adopted. That they simply establish clearly and specifically what had already been established by our forefathers..they did not enable our “federal” government to create more power to do what they want, but to keep them within the frame work.


Nan Mynatt 5 years ago

Great Hub Will, keep writing and alert the public of what is really going on. I was a history major and I am very upset of what is going on in the US. I do hop that they repeal the health care bill, we can't afford the price, and it is a forced bill. It appears that the president is going in the wrong direction and trying absolute authority to force on the American people his way of doing things. I hope that he realizes his mistakes before it is too late! A black billionare from Northern Illinois was on TV and said that the way we are fighting no one want to do business with this country, and that is the reason they are going to foreign countries!


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

Hello, Will,

This is a useful, awesome, beautiful and interesting post and quite worthy of being voted all the way up to heaven above.

As you are aware, I "visited" the article of the hubber that you refer to in this post and left a comment. Well, after responding by calling me "stupid" he deleted my comment.

You see, that hubber is a perfect of example of the fascist ways of seeing things that liberalism is rooted in.

Exactly the same way as he sees things, liberals believe that We The People are supposed to be dictated to by The State and that The State is supposed to forcibly take away people's hard-earned money and give it away to those who, in a great many cases, are not doing nearly enough to help themselves.

As a black man, I despise liberals because with their glut of handout programs and widespread disregard of the rules that keep a society civilized and orderly they have inflicted more damage on "my people" than the folks who enslaved my forebears ever did.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Chris'

You said:

"It has always been my impression that the very “liberties” that our forefathers talked about was vital in the construction of our Constitution. It was designed to “safeguard” these liberties that we cherish."

And so it says, just below "We the People" in the preamble:

"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ..."

You also said:

"Hamilton basically said that Constitution's “limited government” would have been the same if “Bill of Rights” had never been adopted."

And he was wrong, as we have seen from people like My Esoteric, who are trying to convince us that government has no limits.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Nan,

Robert Johnson, owner of BET said this over the weekend:

""Well, I think the president has to recalibrate his message. You don't get people to like you by attacking them or demeaning their success.

"I didn't go in to business to create a public policy success for either party, Republican or Democrat. I went in business to create jobs and opportunity, create opportunity, create value for myself and my investors. And that's what the president should be praising, not demagoguing us simply because Warren Buffet says he pays more than his secretary."


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, feenix,

I have had several, polite and sincere comments deleted on Hubpages political Hubs, and all of them were deleted by 'tolerant' leftists.

They do not like dissent.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Will, I too, am amazed at how simple it is to see that our government is without a doubt intended to be "limited", yet so many digress and insist that it should/must be at the powers to be, to control every aspect of our lives....


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Chris,

To the far left, 'promote the general welfare" becomes 'PROVIDE the general welfare' which in turn becomes 'provide INDIVIDUAL welfare' and finally, 'those who did not earn the wealth have more right to it than those who did earn the wealth', AKA: income redistribution.

We are at the point where the Constitutional limitation on government powers is all but ignored. There's no delegated power to redistribute wealth, and there's no delegated power over education, but we are doing it anyway.

As a result of runaway government, we are trillions upon trillions in debt, with no end in sight, and our dollar is teetering on the brink of collapse. But we still spend billions and billions every day, and 40 cents of every dollar spent goes on the national credit card.

Now government has gone so far as to require Americans to buy health insurance from the same wealthy companies who drove up medical prices in the first place.

There's no delegated Constitutional power to do that!

If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, Americans need to revolt and take back their Constitution.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Great Hub, Will.

I think everyone knows my position on the Constitution, so I'll skip commenting on that.

Instead, I'd like to note that you seem to draw interesting Hubbers. In fact, I'm considering doing a Hub that would a study on debating (not commenting) tactics. We've all noted the Hubbers who quickly resort to name-calling when they don't like something. But the tactic I see here is new (I've led a sheltered Hub-life perhaps) and perhaps is best described as "Persistent Questioning". It seems an adequate description - it was the favored argumentative stance I used to use when I was a child. The tactic is simply this, always ask 'why', when you get an answer, find a way to ask another question, continue it and declare victory when the person gives up or walks away. It never failed.

Unfortunately, being able to win a debate by such a tactics doesn't mean you made a point, in fact, more often it meant the debator had no point to make, they simply wanted to appear like a winner. Or they lacked the confidence to expose their own argument to debate. They forget (or never learned) that the search for compromise loses out sometimes when one side feels like they have to win.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, FitnezzJim,

The left likes to play that game. They refuse to make an actual point or an argument, preferring instead to pepper their opponent with endless questions (and their comments are always long and tortured), inferring that they are right, without ever producing a scrap of evidence to prove anything. They want their opponent to bear that burden.

I refuse to play their game.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Dexter - Perfectly said! and this "We the People" has been studying the American Revolution, the Constitutional Convention, and the philosophical basis used by our framers to write both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the last one and a half years now; that is where all my damnably liberal diatribes come from, unfortunately.

@Will, I know this will be a loaded question, but I am forced to ask, show me where, in all that I have written here, that I said " people like My Esoteric, who are trying to convince us that government has no limits."? I have never said government "has no limits"; all I have ever said is that government was never intended to be as limited as you imply it should be.

In fact, the very last thing I said was "At the end of the few lists of enumerated powers is the catch-all clause that says basically that Congress can pass ANY law it needs to, that IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by the Constitution, which is necessary to Defend and provide for the General Welfare of this Nation .."

Now you took a part out of the 10th Amendment which says "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."

Now, let me offer one from the Constitution itself and, sorry, another loaded question, ask you to reconcile the two and term "limited" government in the way you mean it.

Article 1, Section 8, last paragraph - To make all Laws which shall be necessary to carry into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To me, this Section and the 10th Amendment conflict with each other; the former seems to expand the power of the federal government and the latter seems to limit it. Because of this conflict, the Supreme Court has been kept very busy finding the right balance.

It took me a while, but I finally found a quote where Alexander Hamilton actually used the words "limited government." He said "It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government."; to which I would agree. He also said, however, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." Somehow, those two quotes also seem to conflict unless you take a broader view of the term "limited".


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"...all I have ever said is that government was never intended to be as limited as you imply it should be."

I made no implication. I said flat out that government is supposed to be limited to the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution, as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment.

Only a very unconstrained, liberal Supreme Court reading of the commerce and general welfare clauses allowed government to expand and encroach on the liberties, freedoms, and property rights the Founding Fathers sought to secure for We the People. That was done by FDR, when he threatened to pack the Court if they opposed him.

Liberals have bastardized the intent of the Constitution via liberal Court 'interpretation', because they knew an attempt to amend the Constitution to give them vast new powers would never have been supported by We the People.

BTW, there's no conflict in Hamilton's words. The intent of the Constitution was to grant certain, limited powers, without also endangering the rights of We the People.


caltex profile image

caltex 5 years ago

The constitution has been so twisted by the libs. We're all equal, I agree. Tolerate this, tolerate that, and yet we cannot tolerate tradition. I always hear, "it's their right" while they trample on mine. Such crazy world we live in! I don't even want to think how it would be like many years from now.


Sueswan 5 years ago

Well said Will.

Voted up and awesome.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

If all that was meant by "limited" was what you offered by example from George Washington, then we would be in total agreement, but, I suspect that is not your definition. You keep addressing the enumerated powers without identifying them. I identified one of them in Ariticle 1,Section 8 which seems to contradict your definition of "limited" yet you remain silent to that Constitutional verbage and don't show why my interpretation of that clause as being pretty broad is wrong, why?

Also, @Caltex says " ... and yet we cannot tolerate tradition. ..." You do understand, don't you, that if the framers of the Constitution had stood on tradition and done what had been asked of them by the Continental Congress, America would have a slightly improved version of the Articles of Confederation as our Constitution rather than what we have today. Is that what you all are trying to achieve? A federal government that has the powers the Continental Congress had? That body definitely was "limited". Is this the definition of "limited" you are shooting for?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Again, in my mind (I know that is scary)...it seems so very obvious that "limited" meant exactly that.

The last line in our Preamble to the Constitution is this...

"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Key words there is SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY...

The more our Government becomes "un limited" the fewer liberties we have....

I will grant you that the term “limited” never appears in the Constitution but it is a consequence of the principles given to us from the Declaration of Independence that proclaims “their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The bottom line is this for me.......and we could argue technicalities for ever.....BUT, it is extermely obvious that we MUST have a "limited" government or we will get what we are now facing...a government that spends more than we take in...entitlements, lobbyists, and corruption running rapid through out our system.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Chris is right of course. How can government be without limits when the We the People specified their retention of rights and liberties in the preamble? And of course, that concept is advanced in the Bill of Rights, where each amendment serves to further limit government. For instance, the left has been trying to disarm We the People for years, but have been prevented by the Second Amendment, which prohibits government from doing so (a constitutional right that the four liberal justices said does not exist!).

I like the following:

"In 1789, James Madison presented to the First United States Congress a series of ten amendments to the United States Constitution which are today known as the Bill of Rights. After enumerating specific rights retained by the people in the first eight amendments, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment summarily spelled out the principle of limited government. Together, these two last Amendments clarify the differences between the unenumerated (as well as enumerated) rights of the people versus the expressly codified delegated powers of the federal government. The Ninth Amendment codified that the rights of the people do not have to be expressly written in the Constitution (i.e., do not have to be enumerated) to still be retained by the people. In the reverse, though, the Tenth Amendment codified that any delegated powers of the federal government are only authorized to be performed so long as such delegated powers are expressly delegated to the federal government specifically by the U.S. Constitution. Government can only do things people allow it to do. Government is not all powerful.

The U.S. Constitution limits the power of the government in several ways. It prohibits the government from directly interfering with certain key areas: conscience, expression and association. Other actions are forbidden to the federal government and are reserved to state or local governments."

Caltex is also correct. If some new 'right' claimed by the left infringes on the rights of others, then it's obviously not a right at all, and it's another bastardization of the Constitution. Those new 'rights' are in fact, cleverly disguised new powers for government. That's what is so wrong with Obamacare and why so many Americans instinctively oppose it and want it repealed. It is a major trampling of our rights and liberties.

Hi, Sueswan, and thank you!


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

Will, great piece on what was meant vs what is. I have my rights guaranteed by several calibers that is good enough for me. These mental midgets blow my mind and it seems it would take the wind out of a soldier, but not yet, Peace 50


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Chris, you hit the nail on the head, sort of. You said "The more our Government becomes "un limited" the fewer liberties we have....", that may or may not be true, depending on the details. That statement makes a nice bumbersticker, but what is it the Left has done that that the Right wouldn't have. I can give you one example, passage of the Civil Rights Act. That was fought vigorously by Conservatives, you had Governers standing in school house doorways. If we had Hubpages back then, we would be having this same exact conversation with you on the right and me on the left talking about "limited" government and how the left was trying to abuse in passing this Act.

Now, tell me, how is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a "limit on liberties" and an abridgement of, as you put it "Key words there is SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY...

"

BTW, Will, you say "For instance, the left has been trying to disarm We the People for years ..."; you know as well that statement is patently untrue! It makes a nice soundbite, sure, but false nevertheless. Now, there are SOME on the left who would like to ban guns outright, hand guns especially, at least in high crime ares, but there aren't many of them. MOST of those in the center, like me, and on the left favor gun control, passing such laws as needed to ensure responsible ownership of guns.

For me, Iwould like to see such laws as "absolute liability" meaning that unless you can prove you kept your weapons secured in an appropriate manner, you have responsibility for however they are used by whomever uses them, including your kids. If it gets stolen because you left it laying about, and it is used in a murder, then you should held criminally and civilly liable because you failed to maintain control of your gun. How does that sit with you all?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

And @Will, who wrote the quote you presented above that begins "In 1789, James Madison presented ..."? That is spot on and I couldn't agree with it more; I wish I had said it as concisely.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Dusty,

"I have my rights guaranteed by several calibers that is good enough for me."

That was a major selling point in the Bill of Rights. Disarming the citizens is one of the first steps in establishing a tyranny, and the main reason the left keeps trying. They are only one vote away in the Supreme Court. Four justices said there is no such right!


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

Will, they may vote the right away, but that only guarantees them one thing and that will be the act of confiscation, yet sadly many will just turn them in, sulking away beaten by ink and paper and if that becomes the majority it's time for me to go, dust


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"BTW, Will, you say "For instance, the left has been trying to disarm We the People for years ..."; you know as well that statement is patently untrue!"

You are demonstrating either your awesome ignorance or your awesome dishonesty...I assume the latter:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

-- U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

-- Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers...No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

-- Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns."

-- Rahm Emmanuel, senior advisor to Bill Clinton

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

-- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95

"We must get rid of all the guns."

-- Sarah Brady speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil Donahue Show" September 1994

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

-- HCI President Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, p.3

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

-- Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!"

-- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (D/NY) on NBC 12/8/93


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

And what does the left really think about your rights and freedoms?:

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

-- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."

-- Bill Clinton on MTV's "Enough is Enough", 4/19/1994

As you can see, the left is clearly not the friend of freedom at all.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Dusty,

"Will, they may vote the right away, but that only guarantees them one thing and that will be the act of confiscation..."

One threat the left has always used is the military, should Americans revolt over the attempt to disarm We the People. But that, of course, presumes the military would side with the same left that has always loathed the military.

In any case, a small band of poorly armed, rag-tag Iraqi insurgents almost defeated the American military. What makes anyone think a reluctant military could defeat millions of well armed Americans?


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

Will, again a mental Midget who has not been associated with fire arm ownership over the past 50 years and the assaults the second has weathered while loosing ground steadily. I have to pay for the right today, where that was untrue in the 1950s.

BTW, have you read the book "Unintended Consequences" ?

dust


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

About legislated 'rights':

Do we have a natural right to force a homeowner to rent us his property when he does not want to, even if his reason is nothing more than a personal prejudice?

Do we have a natural right to force an employer to hire us when he does not want to, even if his reason is nothing more than a personal prejudice?

It sounds reasonable at first, and it appeals to our sense of fair play, but what it actually does is give government vast new powers to regulate private property and to diminish private property rights.

If a new leftist 'right' infringes on real rights, then it is not a right at all.

Make no mistake about it...the left's agenda is an all powerful government, and the total demise of the sacred rights and liberties of We the People.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Dusty,

"Will, again a mental Midget who has not been associated with fire arm ownership over the past 50 years and the assaults the second has weathered while loosing ground steadily."

I have no doubt that our far-left friend knew damn well that the left has been trying to disarm America for years. He just thought I had no evidence. I've played his dishonest game many times, because there are millions of liberals out there spouting the same lies, in an attempt to deceive the gullible.

BTW, their 'reasonable' regulations are anything but reasonable. They are incremental steps toward their admitted final goal:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

-- U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

@ My Esoteric,

You said the following:

"I can give you one example, passage of the Civil Rights Act. That was fought vigorously by Conservatives, you had Governers standing in school house doorways"

Now you have really lost me....it was CLEARLY the republicans who was in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.....

I got this from your source Wikipedia..

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

It was the Republicans who favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96.

So WHAT exactly is your point with this statement?


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

Hi Will-

This so called "living Constitution" philosophy is just an excuse for liberal judges to get around the Constitution.

The constitution's admendment provision was put in place to meet the demands of the changing times. The only legitimate method of interpreting the Constitution is to determine the writers origin intent. I believe any other method to be illegitimate.

Since FDR'S court packing schemes politicians have advocated a "living Constitution" in order to impliment extra-constitutional big government programs.

The promoters of the living constitution claim that it allows to constitution to change according to the evolving societal values and needs. Of course it's these all wise liberal judges who determine when and how are values and needs have changed!

I believe the new role of a judge to be a philosopher king rather an impartial interpretor of the Constitution!-Regards-WBA


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, WBA,

A 'living constitution' that changes meaning as time passes is an oxymoron. The very word 'constitution' denotes a rigid set of rules:

1. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.

Claiming interpretive power to change the meaning of the People's Constitution without first resorting to the prescribed and required amendment method, is a excellent example of both the dishonesty and the menace of the far left.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Chris,

Great point, and let us also not forget that My Esoteric's despicable man standing in the door of the schoolhouse to bar the entry of black students, was George Wallace, a life long Democrat!


lilyfly profile image

lilyfly 5 years ago from Wasilla, Alaska

Boy Will, you struck a cord here. How I was supposed to describe it was, first, the indivual's claim to power over their own fate was sacrosanct. Then the will of the county, then one's state, then one's country, meaning the Federal Govt.'s power would come in last.

Looks like we have it turned around, doesn't it. Am I correct in my view? Good read Sir... lily


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Will, on gun control ... no doubt all those people, who are all liberals that make up the left side of the Democratic party said those things; they believe them especially Brady, and for very good reason. Most Democrats, who represent the mainstream of the Democratic party don't, like President Obama; he favors control and not a ban. I suspect if I take the time to look, I can find an equal number of statements from other popular Democrats who will disagree with those you put up.

Chris and others, try restating what you have said but instead of using the mutable terms Democrat and Republican, use the more enduring terms of Conservative and Liberal (or Progressive like Republican Teddy Roosevelt or Republican Abraham Lincoln, it you will.) Do you remember when, in 1994 and 1995, all of those "Democrats" switched sides to join their true brethern, the Conservative Republicans. The man standing in the doorway was a Conservative. All of those who opposed the Civil Rights Act were Conservatives. Any move forward to extend the libirties of minorities have always been opposed by Conservatives, bar none. It was the Conservatives who tried to keep slavery legal; it makes no difference what their political title was at the time, for they have flip-floped a couple of times now in the last 200 years. What hasn't changed is the Conservative agenda and the Progressive agenda. The Conservatives have always been conservative, be they Anti-federalist, Democrat or Republican and the Progressives have always been progressive, be they Federalist, Democrat or Republican.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WBA, wouldn't it make sense that if the framers wanted a "dead" constitution, they would have left out that part about amending it? That way it would be truly immutable.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"...no doubt all those people, who are all liberals that make up the left side of the Democratic party said those things..."

Ya think? And there are plenty more where those came from, including liberal Republicans.

In any case, I think I proved your statement to be utterly false:

"BTW, Will, you say "For instance, the left has been trying to disarm We the People for years ..."; you know as well that statement is patently untrue!"

And, as we have also demonstrated, the left has admitted that the so-called 'reasonable gun control measures' you advocate are actually well disguised steps to confiscation, so I guess you know where you can place your 'reasonable' controls.

^_*


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, lilyfly,

You have it exactly right, and it is now an upside down wedding cake, with the individual American supporting all those layers of government on his back.

It's supposed to be the other way around, with most of the political power at the local level, and with all layers of government supporting the individual American's rights and liberties.

It has all been bastardized by power hungry politicians.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

It was not because Conservatives WANTED to keep slavery legal, they wanted each State to decide, NOT the federal government...that is a huge problem with many of today's progressives, they try to demonize and propagandize those on the right with blanket statements as such.

And the republicans of that time were STILL on the RIGHT, and it was the RIGHT that secured that 1964 act.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Chris, I simply have to disagree with you, I haven't looked yet, but I will and I bet you that when we count the number of progressive/liberal votes vs the number of conservative votes for and against the Civil Rights Act, there is just no doubt in my mind that, wheter Democrat or Republican, a vast majortiy of conseratives voted against it.

Next, on each state deciding. Are you suggesting that you could live in an America where AL, GA, MS, SC, NC, and LA still operated on a slave economy if that is what they wanted to do?

That kind of America is what you would have if there had been no U.S. Constitution, don't you see; a disparate bunch of States acting on there own with no sense of commonality. Is it this kind of America that conservatives are striving for?

Will, from your writings, your "left" is very sweeping; it takes in everybody from liberal Republicans on. If you had said "most liberals", I would have agreed with you; but you didn't, you simply said "left" which takes everybody to the left of you. I am on your left and I don't support banning guns.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"I am on your left and I don't support banning guns."

You're very cagey about where you actually do stand on guns, like most other liberals. You say you support 'control' of that right, but don't specify what sort of control.

It's enough to know that when a liberal wants gun 'control', that almost always means ultimate confiscation.

What control do you see as reasonable, and how would it control crime?


Pamela99 profile image

Pamela99 5 years ago from United States

Absolutely awesome hub. Fortunately I didn't come across that other hub. I believe in the Constitution just as it was written and I still think these loud mouth liberals are in the minority but it is very disconcerting that they are getting more and more out in left field. Keep up the great writing.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

My Esoteric -

The framers new there would have to be changes in the Constitution but the key point is who is to makes these changes- a group of unelected judges or the constitutional amendment process.

Changes in our Constitution were made difficult on purpose, a 2/3rd’s majority in both houses of Congress is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment if judges can alter the original meaning by via a living Constitution why would all this be necessary?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Will, actually, I have stated my postion on gun control quite extensively elsewhere and, quite rightly, it is not appropriate to write hubs here. If you are interested in my views, visit my hub "The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords and a Stance on Gun Control"

@Pamela - Do you really think the Liberals are any more far left now than they were say in President Johnson's time? It is my observation that their positions are about the same as they always have been. What has changed, as you have noted, is their number; it has decreased significantly since their heyday in the 1960s. It is my impression the major part of the Democratic party has moved quite a bit to the right as Republicans like I used to be prior to 1992, were forced to the Democratic side by the radicalization of the Republican party by the Religious Right and hard-line Conservatives.

@WBA - don't you think that the framers had considered the kinds of judges that might be appointed to the Supreme Court when they created it? Remember, the Framers were the Liberals of their day, not Conservatives; the Conservatives of the day wanted nothing to do with the new Constitution.

Article III provides the parameters for the Supreme Court and the best I can tell, they intended the Court to interpret the Constitution and the writings surrounding its creation in order to settle differences of opinion as to what this section or that section meant in a particular circumstance. Do you read it differently? As you can tell just from this long series of comments, there are certainly differences of opinion about what is meant by the term "limited" as to the Power of the federal government relative to the States. They make rulings every year trying to settle this question.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

BTW, for those of you who don't know it, virtually all of you would be voting Democratic all through the 1800s while I would be voting Whig or Republican. My research doesn't cover the first part of the 1900s yet, but, from about 1950 to 1994, if you lived in the South, most of you would be Democrats as well, like Strom Thurman, as would I like Jimmy Carter. Only if you lived elsewhere in America would you likely be a Republican, as I actually was.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"Will, actually, I have stated my postion on gun control quite extensively elsewhere and, quite rightly, it is not appropriate to write hubs here."

...

That hasn't stopped you so far.

...

I read that Hub, and it's typical, liberal statistical lying, coupled with a heavy layer of emotional appeal.

The majority of gun murders in the US are committed by young, black and Hispanic gang members, and if a citizen is not a gang member, not a criminal, and doesn't use illicit drugs, their chance of dying by gunfire is almost zero.

You have no case.


bethperry profile image

bethperry 5 years ago from Tennesee

Will, it always amazes me how pro-socialists can always manage to misdirect the essence of the Constitution by dissecting to death every human flaw of the signers and holding up "what if" scenarios regarding their individual feelings while and after signing it..and YET conveniently forget the insanity, inhumanity and oft-times criminality that so often did and still do run amuck among socialist and communist moralizers.

Sorry for the lengthy sentence there. And while I have no idea who this hubber is you refer to, I love this hub. Voting up.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Very well put, Beth!

We the People's Constitution is an impediment to the far left, so they constantly attack it, and claim it does not limit their socialist ambitions.

But it does.


manthy profile image

manthy 5 years ago from Alabama,USA

Very well written hub - Voted up and awesome ;0)


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Thank you @Will for finally qualifying your identification. Yep, I agree with your statement that the Constitution is an impediment to the FAR left, as it is to the FAR right; that is the beauty of the Constitution.

If I am not mistaken, Beth, there may be actually one person who identifies himself as a Socialist who is currently ELECTED by We the People to Congress, or at least was; he is, of course, from the far Northeast. There are others on the far left who embrace many of the goals of Socialism but REJECT the method Socialism would use to achieve them. What are the goals of Socialism? How about:

"A primary goal of socialism is Social Equality and a Distribution of Wealth based on One's Contribution to society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the Interests of Society As A Whole."

It is this goal that the a good portion of the left believes in and a good portion of the Right rejects.

The Socialist movement began in the 1800s, btw, in reaction to the maltreatment by the wealthy industrialist of the workers who made their wealth possible.

What virtually ALL on the left reject, however, is the means to Socialism. Almost to a person, the Left REJECTS the following:

"In a Socialist economy, the Means of Producing and Distributing goods is Owned Collectively or by a Centralized Government that often Plans and Controls the economy."

I challenge you @Beth, or anyone else commenting here, to name more than one Congressman who subscribes to an economic system that comes anywhere close to this ideal. If you can, plaese support it with examples from their speeches or laws proposed.

Socialists generally do argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls the means of production and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This creates a stratified society based on unequal social relations that fails to provide equal opportunities for every individual to maximize their potential"

Believing in the above statement doesn't make you a Socialist, and I find that statement to be absolutely true in America today, what makes you a Socialist is if you believe in the Socialist way of solving this problem, which no Congressman that I know of does.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

In a nutshell, Socialist believe in government or state controlled EVERYTHING. They are against private owned or controlled EVERYTHING.

I don't think you have to diasect many politicians today to clearly see those who are in favor of such ideas.

I think most people know the difference between the text book socialist and the, what I refer too, as the modern day socialist here in the USA. It may not be true and blue socialism, but it is a reasonable facsimile.

at least that is the way I see it.


thelyricwriter profile image

thelyricwriter 5 years ago from West Virginia

Well done Will and you always have my vote. I agree. The non-partisan is a dieing breed. Like you said, it would have been hard to imagine a governed country without kings and queens. It shows how are leaders thinked outside the box. They did a great job looking at the future. We are missing that these days. In Washington, it is "we the government" now and it is BS. I worry about our future and the future for our children. We are on the wrong path and I can't say one single candidate will change that. We really need a leader to step up for the America. Obama is great at making promises, but that is it. Well said Will.


maven101 profile image

maven101 5 years ago from Northern Arizona

Will...Thank you for this thoughtful and inspiring cautionary Hub on our threatened Constitution...Some of the commenters reflect the mindset of the Progressive party of 1912 and its continuing agenda to manipulate the Constitution through activist judicial mandate, bypassing congress and we, the people...

Benjamin Franklin, when asked " Sir, what sort of government have you given us ? " is purported to have replied “A Republic madam, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin recognized the threat posed to a “Representative Republic” by partisan politics, special interests, and unrestrained growth of the central (Federal) government.

The keyword here is " unrestrained "...Your progressive commenters do not seem able to distinguish the difference between an accountable smaller government and one that is unrestrained...If they want change let them recognize that due process, through a Constitutional Convention, is where change ( amendment to the Constitution ) occurs, with deliberation and open debate...

What's to prevent any determined president from packing the court, such as FDR, and circumventing those constitutional rights..? Congress is the only deterrent, and if congress is wholly owned by one party or the other, that body will merely become a rubber stamp in the process...

" The unrestrained power of government " has been on vivid display under the Obama administration. The grass roots movement of the Tea Party has awakened many Americans to the threat of a large, uncaring, and unresponsive government bureaucracy that continues to erode our freedoms and hold our future generations hostage to a debt-ridden , unstable, and ultimately, dangerous future...Larry


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

My Esoteric-

Contrary to popular belief-“the Constitution isn’t what the judges say it is”- as Supreme Court Justice Hughes famously declared!

The concept of judicial review that is known today is largely misunderstood. According to the founders the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbitrator of constitutional questions. If fact the Constitution gives Congress greater power than the judiciary. Federalist #51 says, “The legislative authority necessarily predominates”. Congress has the authority to determine the type and scope of cases brought before the courts. Congress is charged with determining the jurisdiction of the courts except where the Constitution gives the courts original jurisdiction. It is true that while applying the law to particular cases, courts sometimes judge an act of the legislature to be in conflict with the Constitution but this does not make them the supreme authority on the Constitution.

Contrary to popular belief all three branches of government are charged with interpreting the Constitution according to the matters under their authority. The ultimate arbitrators of constitutional questions are the people themselves as expressed through their elected agents.

Thomas Jefferson held:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

He went on to say:

“The Constitution . . . would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Isn’t Jefferson’s fears realized in the concept of a “Living Constitution”?

-Regards-WBA


50 Caliber profile image

50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

Will, at the risk of repetitiveness Maven prompted me to bring this link from my archives as I feel it is the best description of the US and the description of intended system. Feel free to delete it as I'm sure you've seen it,

Peace,

dust

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, manthy,

Good to see you here!


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"Thank you @Will for finally qualifying your identification."

I have no idea to what that snarky comment refers.

"Yep, I agree with your statement that the Constitution is an impediment to the FAR left, as it is to the FAR right; that is the beauty of the Constitution."

I see lots of people on the far left, but I don't know anyone on the far right, and I see no constitutional impediment to conservatives at all, because we see things the same way the Founders did.

The liberals of today are nothing like the liberals who founded our country.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi Chris,

You are correct. Claiming we are not yet under total, classic socialism is a poor argument, with so many social programs already in place, and a $14 trillion debt!

BTW, the Democrat left, without any support from Republicans, and damn little from the people, just socialized 1/6 of our entire economy with Obamacare. It is set up in such a way that government will soon be in complete control of medicine in America, putting insurance companies out of business.

Your medical records will soon be the property of the US government. Isn't that comforting?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, thelyricwriter,

"In Washington, it is "we the government" now and it is BS."

Yes. It's the secluded mental state of 'being inside the beltway', and away from We the People.

And with Obama and the liberal left, it's the disdain with which they view the small town and country hicks, "clinging to their guns and religion".

It's the same obvious and arrogant disdain we see from some of the liberals here on HubPages.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi Larry, and I agree,

The Tea Party represents We the People, and it scares the hell out of the left. The Tea Party members are little changed from those who founded our country, and are therefore, a real threat to the progressive/liberal/leftist movement.

"The keyword here is " unrestrained "...Your progressive commenters do not seem able to distinguish the difference between an accountable smaller government and one that is unrestrained...If they want change let them recognize that due process, through a Constitutional Convention, is where change ( amendment to the Constitution ) occurs, with deliberation and open debate..."

As I'm sure you recognize, but are too polite to say, the progressives understand perfectly well the intent, but simply do not wish to abide by such constraints, so they dismiss them.

I have seen the wish list of the progressives for a Constitutional Convention, and it is appalling. We must never allow it. Most of our present rights would disappear under the guise of new 'rights'.

Article V is available for the amendment process.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, wba108,

"Contrary to popular belief-“the Constitution isn’t what the judges say it is”- as Supreme Court Justice Hughes famously declared!"

And that was the basis for this Hub. The Constitution belongs to We, the People, and not to government. The People's Constitution is the government's leash, not their whip.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Dusty!

I have seen similar ones, but that one is superb. I'll add it to the Hub!

Thank you!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

And Federalist #51 is absolutely right; the way it is structured, the Congress has a major check on the Supreme Court via passing laws and also in its ability to start the Amendment process.

HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has a BALANCE on Congress (remember Checks and Balances, well it works in all three branches) via judicial review. The sentence in Federalist #51 that says so is

"It is true that while applying the law to particular cases, courts sometimes judge an act of the legislature to be in conflict with the Constitution but ..."

That is the PURPOSE, or at least one of them, of the Supreme Court, to arbitrate on the Constitutionality of Laws passed by Congress when such Laws are challenged; if those Laws are never challenged, then the Supreme Court never weighs in.

Would you prefer that if, for some reason, Congress passed a law legalizing slavery again in America for there is nothing stopping them from doing so, that the Supreme Court find in favor of it since our Founders didn't prohibit it. Or rather, would you rather have them rule that it is Unconstitutional because of the Amendments passed making it such.

Now, the Check that the Congress has in this case is, if We the People tell them to, is to kick off a Constitutional Amendment fight to allow slavery again. That is the way the system was designed to work, that is how it should work, and that is how it does work, whether you have Liberal judges or Conservative one.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"Now, the Check that the Congress has in this case is, if We the People tell them to, is to kick off a Constitutional Amendment fight to allow slavery again. "

Oh, hogwash! The moment the Constitution was ratified, slavery was doomed. The two were and are totally incompatible.

We are a republic, bound by law, and not the tyranny of majority rule. Therefore, the majority may not deprive the minority of rights and liberties. That's the whole point of a constitutional republic, and the reason we must never allow a true democracy. Should that ever happen, those facing oppression have not just a right, but a duty to take up arms against such tyranny.

(Do you suppose that's why the leftist supporters of a true democracy are trying to disarm We the People?)

BTW, the Supreme Court upheld slavery in the Dred Scott decision, but the power of We the People would not be thwarted, and the Constitutional protection of the liberties of We the People was extended to all.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

BTW, Federalist #51, as well as all of the other Federalist papers, were written to try to convince the Tea Partyers of the day to support the new Constitution. This particular article was an attempt to explain how the checks and balances (which the Tea Partyers. i.e. anti-Federalists, didn't really like anyway, they wanted all power concetrated in Congress just like you are arguing for now) worked and that the Court wouldn't rule America like the anti-Federalist propaganda machine was grinding out.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

And yet, despite all those checks and balances, here we are with leftist courts openly legislating from the bench.

Hence the Second Amendment, should all else fail.


Becky Katz profile image

Becky Katz 5 years ago from Hereford, AZ

My Esoteric, In case no one has ever informed you, Wikipedia is written by anyone who cares to post. Therefore, it is not acceptable as an authority in any form by any foundation of higher learning. Since most of your comments are formed and backed up by Wikipedia, your comments have no merit. They are useless.

Try finding out the real information by doing your own research. You will be surprised at how far off Wikipedia articles are. You will probably also be surprised at what the real truth is.

Will, I found your article well written and your arguments seem to be based on fact. Your opinion seems to be backed up by a solid basis of fact as I have found them. Thank you for preparing a professional, instead of hypothetical argument.


b. Malin profile image

b. Malin 5 years ago

What a Wonderful Hub you have written Will, I'm amazed at all the Comments, from the Left and from the Right...Great Comments and discussions my friend. And just who's Constitution is it...It belongs to the People, written for the People, by the People who cared about this Great Country. I think our Fore Fathers would "Flip" in their Graves to see what this great Nation has become.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Becky Katz,

I rely on recorded history, the words of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution itself.

The left relies on revisionist history and deception.

You can see that clearly in DC VS Heller, both in the decision and the dissenting opinion.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, b. Malin,

The most dangerous threats to freedom are neglect and indifference.

I'm amazed at how many of today's young people, taught in government-run schools, know next to nothing about our own history and our Constitution.

But, since they were taught by government, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Of course the Left says the same thing of the Right.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

My Esoteric

Federalist#49 declares that Congress is and not the judiciary –is, “the confidential guardians of the people's rights and liberties.” This is because the Congress is closer to the people than the courts.

The courts track record of protecting the people’s rights is not that good. Shortly following the Civil War, Congress passed a law opposing segregation but the courts struck the law down and instituted the “separate but equal” statute, it wasn’t till Brown v. Board of Education about 80 years later that the courts finally overturned the “separate but equal” statute.-WBA


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"Of course the Left says the same thing of the Right."

The left wants an unlimited, all powerful government while the right wants the same, limited government the Founding Fathers wanted.

As you can see, you are in a minority of one here.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, wba108@yahoo.com,

There's nothing more dangerous to liberty than judicial activism, which is why I am so disgusted with Republican Senators who refuse to stand up and fight the nominations of known judicial activists like Sonia Sotomayor.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WBA, and Federalist #49 is exactly right, I really don't think anybody disagrees with that, I sure don't. The courts job is to decide between two parties who bring an issue before it, they don't go looking for things to rule on, you know.

If the Democratic Congress passes a Law, and somebody thinks it is unconstitutional, like the Conservative party, who files a lawsuit, who do you think is supposed to decide on its Constitutionality? If we use your standard, because Congress passed, the Supreme Court should, ipso facto, find it Constitutional; if they don't, then by definition, they are being activist even if they are filled with Clarence Thomas'. Is that what you are driving at?

BTW, in that "Separate but Equal" ruling you referred to, of the 7 Justices who voted to for that stance, 5 were "activist" Conservative judges, 2 were of undetermined political pursuasion, and the 1 dissenter who opposed "Separate but Equal" was a Liberal. So, it is not only Liberal judges who are "activists", don't you see.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Becky, I take it you haven't been to Wikipedia lately. It is very well sourced and where it isn't, it says so; consequently, it makes a very valuable research tool.

@Will, you never define what you mean by "limited" so I can only gleen your meaning from your writings. What I gather from you and most of the others here is that to the kind of "limited" government you would finally be happy with, it would have to called the Continental Congress and the U.S Constitution must revert back to the Articles of Confederation. That is the only way you can get the kind of "limited" I hear you talking about.

Of course I am the only non-Conservative here, I have the patience of Job; plus I find the conversation stimulating; I also find "preaching to the choir" is rather boring.

Now, to your important comment "The left wants an unlimited, all powerful government while the right wants the same, limited government the Founding Fathers wanted."

If I define "limited" as I suspect Washington, Jefferson, and Madison did (Adams was a far Left Liberal) we are talking about how they structured the government so that it "limits" any one group or branch from gaining "Permanent" dominance over any other group or branch. Our form of "limited" government isn't perfect, of course, so one group or branch can temporarily gain sway, but, after a while, the pendulum swings and they lose their power, e.g. 1993-1994, 2007-2008, 2009-2010.

It may be true that the amount of social programs and regulations over business by the Democrats makes the Conservatives and Repbulicans uncomfortable, are system is such that if We the People don't like it, we change it; and change it we do, many times a century. That is the way our forefathers designed the system to work and that is the way it is working today.

What they didn't count on, however, is one party gaining control of all of its members and removing Compromise from the legislative process as the Conservatives have done since 2009.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

So you like Wiki? : Here's what Wiki says about constitutions:

"Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the said constitution's limitations."

Which of course is what everyone but you has said all along.

The limitations in We the People's Constitution are clear; government is to have certain enumerated powers and no more! That is clarified in the Tenth Amendment.

Claiming that those limitations are about conflicts between the branches is absurd, and you know it.

One thing you have consistently ignored is the preamble's call to protect the liberty of the people. Only a damn fool would posit that we can have both an unlimited government and protect individual liberty at the same time.

The constitutional limitations on the power of government are necessary to protect the liberties of We the People.

"In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

- Thomas Jefferson


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

And these gems:

"The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution."

- Thomas Jefferson

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.

- James Madison

...

Plus the coup de gras:

I, sir, have always conceived -- I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived -- it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived -- that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers -- but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.

- James Madison, Father of the Constitution


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

My Esoteric- I agree with you that it’s the court’s Constitutional duty to pass judgment on legislation that is rightfully within their jurisdiction. I must have somewhat misunderstood your last post. I’ll try to clarify the point I made a couple posts ago. My point was that judicial review as generally understood today, is not a power given to the judiciary according to the Constitution. This is because judiciary does not have a general power of judicial review, only the power to review legislation within their jurisdiction.

Even if a party in Congress itself attempts brings a case before the court that is out of its jurisdiction, the courts should still not overstep their authority and try a case outside thier jurisdiction. Congress also must not abdicate there constitutional duty to put their foot down when the Judiciary exceeds its authority.

Today the judiciary is often making judgments outside their Constitutional jurisdiction according to the Constitution. The only time the court should condemn a piece of legislation is if it’s in clear violation of the plain meaning of the Constitution. The courts job is not to make value judgments on hot button social issues; these issues should be decided by state legislators.

An example is the Supreme Court ruling that terrorists must be tried in civilian courts instead the courts should of military tribunals. This clearly out of the court’s jurisdiction, the president who is also charged with interpreting the Constitution has jurisdiction in this case. Another example is the court overturning individual state voter initiatives. An example of this is a federal judge ruling that proposition 8, which prohibits a California state recognition of gay marriage, to be null and void. . He reasoned homosexual marriage to be an inalienable right. This ruling negated the will of millions of California voters

Here’s another example taken from my Hub, “In the 1990’s the state of Nevada voted twice to have an amendment to their state constitution requiring a two-thirds majority vote for tax increases. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled to increase the tax by one billion dollars thereby nullifying will of over a million Nevadans by a simple court majority ruling”. In this case the state legislature should have refused to enforce the courts law courts should have never tried this case because it’s not in their jurisdiction.-WBA


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WIll, you really do need to have your eyes checked or a little lubrication applied to your brain. When, in all that I have said above, did I once disagree with any of those quotes you just offered; they are all correct and I believe in every one of them and so do most, if not all, Democrats, although the degree may differ.

Claiming that those limitations are about conflicts between the branches is absurd, and you know it." Go back and read your George Washington quote and then what you said about this very form of "limitation" which is what Washington was talking about, or didn't you notice?

@Will, not everyone has to agree with your EXACT interpretation of what "limitation" means, whatever that is to you, nor to the narowness or broadness surrounding the term itself, which in itself leads to conflict. Nobody has the right answer that, except, apparently you Will.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

"WIll, you really do need to have your eyes checked or a little lubrication applied to your brain."

Typical liberal...insult when you're losing.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@WBA, it is complicated, isn't it. I guess it comes down to interpretation again. How does one interpret the followingfrom Article III:

1. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

2. To all cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Counsols

3. To all cases admiralty and maritime Jurisdictions

4. To Controversies to which the United States may be a Party

5. To Controversies between two or more States

6. The XI Amendment BARS extention, in Law and Equity, arising from cases between suits brought by a Citizen of one United State, or Foreign State, against another State

7. To cases between Citizens of different States

8. To cases between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants from different States

Let me add one more thing, why we have Judicial Review in America. This is from Wikipedia

\The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]

In Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine."

First, let me point out that if Congress didn't like Maybury v Madison, they could have tried to get an Amendment pushed through specifically denying that duty for the Court; they chose not to, instead Congress agreed the Court had this duty.

Second, the first authority given to the Judiciary in Article III seems pretty broad to me, and by extending number 3 a bit, it can easily include the Army. To me, anyway, in reading Article III, there isn't a whole lot that falls outside of the Courts jurisdiction.

Let's apply them to your examples.

Acts of Congress - all Acts of Congress are within the Courts jurisdiction. Keep in mind though, the Court cannot rule on anything NOT brought before it. So, if nobody sues, the Court never rules.

Clear violation of the Plain meaning of the Constitution - unfortunately, for most things brought before the Court, the Constitution is normally pretty vague on; by design. The last paragraph of Section 8 in Article I, which I have apparently failed in getting Will to read, is one of the best examples of this; it is a catch-all paragraph in which a whole bunch of things can be read; there is NOTHING clear about that paragraph at all, which has been my point in the last 3000 words or so. The INTERPRETATION, of that last paragraph, and ones like it, has led to many Supreme Court battles over the last two centuries. It is this paragraph, and its brothers, is where this battle of definitions over "limited" government, at least in my observation, is coming from. The Right seems to deny the existance of the paragraph or that it is meaningless and the far Left seems to think it allows them to do anything they want; which, of course, it does not.

Supreme Court ruling on terrorists - think the Powers in 1 and 3 give them jurisdiction in this matter

Overturning Proposition 8 - First, this wasn't a case of a federal judge saying that gay marriage is an inalienable right any more than he might rule that a straight marriage is; as a matter of law, neither are; they are just a right. But, what the judge did rule on was that denying gays the right to marry was denying homosexuals Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law as guaranteed in the XIV Amendment; and that is within the federal courts jurisdiction.

BTW, if the same bare majority (remember, millions of California voters voted FOR gay marriage; you do realize, don't you, that if only 350,000 out of almost 14 million voters had switched their vote, Proposition 8 would have been defeated and it would have been your side appealing to the federal courts to overturn that vote.) had voted to, say, reopen the Japanese interment camps and put all Japanese Americans in them, and the California Supreme Court agreed with that vote, would you be fine with that? It is a State's rights issue isn't it? How does it effect any other State?

The Nevada case - unfortunately, I am not familiar with that one, so I can't comment on it.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

I am not familiar with the Hub that spurred you to write this one but your work here is brilliant. I agree with you 100 percent in your analysis. Thank you for publishing this needful article.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, James, and thank you!

That Hub was by another leftist, who simply deleted the 'stupid' replies that dared question government's unlimited power.

Apparently, that's the new leftist mantra...the Founding Fathers never intended that the power, authority, and scope of government be limited, which of course, flies in the face of hundreds of Founding Father quotes and history.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

My Esoteric- I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree for now about the meaning of judicial review. Thank you for your well thought out views on the Constitution. – Regards-WBA


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I appreciate yours as well, WBA.


Eiddwen profile image

Eiddwen 5 years ago from Wales

Hi Will,

I thought I was never going to get to the end of these comments.

It is easy to see why there are so many though.

I enjoy reading these hubs because it is a different culture here in Wales,UK.However I doubt that the powers to be are that different.

Carry on writing these hubs Will because I want to carry on reading and learning.

Take care

Eiddwen.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Will,

I just retruned for a second (or third) read.

This Hub is outstanding on its own, and even more outstanding with the level of discussion that shows up in the comments. My thanks not only to you, but to all who have been contributing.

One small comment on the comments: wba108@yahoo.com indicated that it only takes two thirds of both Houses to pass an amendment. The relevant section of the Constititution is Article V. Article V indicates that it takes two thirds of both Houses to "propose" an amendment. Actual ratification (or passing) of an amendment goes through one of three processes, either passing 3/4 of the states legislatures (the usual chosen method), passing 3/4 of an assembled convention (to the best of my recall this has been done once, maybe twice), or by an additional method defined by Congress (never done yet).

Bottom line is that the process for change of our Constitution is not the simplest, nor the fastest process for change. And, in my opinion, this slow and difficult process was intentional so that our system of government would not be changed on the basis of a prevailing wind amongst the elite.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Eiddwen,

Our Constitution is the model for free people all around the world, but it requires constant attention because there are always those who want to abuse it.

It's stated purpose is the empower government for certain, limited purposes while still protecting the tights and liberties of we the people.

As you can see, there are those who support a big, powerful government, but have little regard for the rights and liberties of We the People.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, FitnezzJim,

You are correct that amending the Constitution is deliberately difficult, and requires the support of We the People, regardless of party.

That eliminates whims and ill conceived changes...usually. Remember prohibition and the income tax amendments? One has already been repealed and the other needs to be.


Storytellersrus profile image

Storytellersrus 5 years ago from Stepping past clutter

There you go again, Will, blaming everything on the liberals! The Supreme Court as it currently stands has 4 liberal leaning Justices and 4 conservative leaning Justices, with Kennedy as the swing vote.

Last I checked, "We the People" included even those who disagree with your conservative stance.

If you want to be a purist, well, George Washington distrusted ALL permanent political parties, fearing they might become too powerful. http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/political-...


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 5 years ago from Texas

As to the limitations stipulated by the Constitution regarding the federal government, I think it is reasonable to assume the state intent of creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people showed plenty of "intent" to limit the powers of the government to the desires of the people. Certainly there was no intent for a "politician" to determine what the provided for in terms of government. Ownership of the Constitution and for that matter, this country, lies with and of the people. It is that simple. The rest is simply an illusion created by scheming politicians. WB


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi Barb,

The liberal left insists that the Constitution can be liberally 'interpreted' (by them, of course!), rather than have to go through the prescribed amendment process, so yes, they are the culprits here.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Wayne,

Exactly.

If government was not intended to be limited in size, scope, and power, why insert any concern for personal liberty and freedom, especially for their posterity?:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Will, I think that Patrick Henry quote may very well be one of the best from our forefathers that sums up exactly what is meant by a limited government.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi chris,

It's also very prophetic:

"...lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Once Obamacare begins, both our medical records and our financial records will become property of the US government.

Wikileaks ought to have fun putting all that on the internet.


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 5 years ago from US

Great hub Will. I heard a foreign broadcast this morning talking about Americans protesting the government as some other countries are or have done theirs (people finally seeing the light I am hoping) and I need to look into that. Said some teens or young women were beaten, guess I should verify it before I repeat it but I feel a fit coming on, lol. It sometimes makes me very unpopular, but as Jami says there is really no profit, so I figure there needs to be a cause now and then in this split personality of mine, lol. I personally think we need to wipe out both parties and start over with ones we force to do this right, but I am sure that what is happening is just the forerunner for a one world government.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, Pollyannalana,

Unfortunately, the current international crops of protestors are mostly Marxists, demanding their 'fair share' of what other people have earned.

They are taught that in our government run schools.


Pollyannalana profile image

Pollyannalana 5 years ago from US

Oh well, a shame the right ones don't want a say...


LuxmiH profile image

LuxmiH 5 years ago from Fort Pierce, Florida

Hi Will, thank you for this Hub.

Although I am a (legal) immigrant, who has become a proud to be an American citizen, I, perhaps more than most appreciate the Power and depth of the original Constitution. It is a document that will stand the test of time as long as we protect it from those who would disect it, and chop it into socialist pieces.

Voted up and useful.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, LuxmiH, and welcome to America!

It's a national disgrace that our legal immigrants know far more of our history and of our Constitution than those who were born and raised here.

It should also be noted that those coming to America appreciate her far more than the spoiled, socialist brats who live here.


LuxmiH profile image

LuxmiH 5 years ago from Fort Pierce, Florida

In Africa various tribes sent their young men out to kill a lion as part of their initiation. Then later, instead of hunting lion the young men had to go to South Africa and work in the gold mines for a year... an act considered to require as much bravery as facing the fangs of a lion. I think it would be a good idea to send those who want to change America into a socialist state and toss out the Constitution, to go live and work as a local in places like Mainland China. They will surely return home with a new appreciation of what America offers.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi, LuxmiH,

Liberal socialists always picture themselves as part of the elite, not the downtrodden.

I met a woman back in the 60's who escaped the Soviet Union by swimming a river with her family. She said American socialists were damned fools for wanting the very thing so many were trying desperately to escape.


Cogerson profile image

Cogerson 5 years ago from Virginia

Wow great hub....and even better comments between you and My Estoeric...I love the comment where you told him to stop using your comment section to write his hubs....very funny....as for the hub...very well written and I support your thoughts ...voted up and awesome.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Thank you, Cogerson.

I love it when they say they will be brief, and then write a book!


smcopywrite profile image

smcopywrite 5 years ago from all over the web

will this is great hub and inspired me to write one myself. thank you for all of your detailed, insightful information. more importantly taking a stand and putting your opinions out there.

http://hubpages.com/politics/We-the-People-in-Orde...


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Thank you, smcopywrite!


Ghost32 4 years ago

Been a while since I managed to lift my head out of the mud long enough to see what you've been up to, Will--but if I could only catch one for the moment, I'm glad it was this one.

We (meaning several hundred million Americans) tend to forget, or never knew, that the opposition to our Constitutional Republic was there before the Revolutionary War and has never left our shores. Enemies to the intent of the Founding Fathers have worked to tear down the magnificent structure that is the Constitution from Day One, and it's highly likely they'll still be going at it when the final bell is rung and life on planet Earth is no more.

But it just hit me: That's actually a GOOD thing. No, it's more than good. It's an ESSENTIAL thing.

Because only the constant struggle for survival keeps those of us who revere the principles laid down in the Articles, Preamble, and Amerndments to the Constitution STRONG ENOUGH to resist those who would corrode its meaning to something dark and dirty.

Were we to have, say, even a single century where NO ONE tried to subvert its meaning, the Constitution would find its defenders had gone soft, weak, and naive. And at that point, a simple coup by an organized group of socialsts (or fascists, or whatever) could all too easily walk in and wipe out the entire structure within a matter of, say, a few years.

But we are NOT soft, weak, or naive. Those of us currently sounding the clarion call to battle (REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!) have been tested in the fires, of near-constant war and the simple yet devastatingly effective struggle for survival on a thousand levels.

I frequently thank Obama for existing as he does. Yes, he presents a great danger to all that is good in America. But that very presentation has produced the Great Awakening, given us the opportunity to flex our muscles of every sort (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual)...and once again, we ride to war.

Many have said our fathers who fought in World War II--were to be known as The Greatest Generation. Perhaps. Certainly they paid Freedom's price many times over, and that's a good thing. But it seems to me that there is, every so often, another and yet another Greatest Generation...and those of us--be we 18 or 88 on Election Day--could properly be known as The Greatest Population for having thrown out an eager despot in a landslide.

I ramble, therefore I desist.

Voted Up and More.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

I agree. Without such attacks on our Constitution, we might relax our vigilance and lose it all.

Well said, Ghost!


Teylina profile image

Teylina 4 years ago

Usually stay out of hubs like this, but I feel compelled to let you know it is a superb piece. Up, interesting and definitely applicable.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Hi Teylina!

I'm pleased that you did get involved with your comment. That's exactly what we need in America...involved citizens!


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@Ghost has an interesting point, because each side can use an identical article. BTW, Conservatives were virtually in charge of the United States from Thomas Jefferson to Herbert Hoover, with brief breaks for Republicans Abraham Lincoln/Andrew Johnson and Teddy Roosevelt; well over a century and we are still standing.


Skarlet profile image

Skarlet 4 years ago from California

Great job. Voted up all the way :)


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Thank you, Skarlet!


bmcoll3278 profile image

bmcoll3278 4 years ago from Longmont, Colorado

I have the same problem with leftys and agree with you 100 %


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Thank you, bmcoll3278!


Phyllis Doyle profile image

Phyllis Doyle 3 years ago from High desert of Nevada.

Thank you, WillStarr -- for all you are, for all you give.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona Author

Sad to say that the corrupt Supreme Court did rule in favor of forcing all Americans (except politicians and Supreme Court Justices, of course) on to Obamacare. Even a so-called conservative justice cared more about his own career than he cared about We, the People.

Thank you, Phyllis!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working