Alexander's Essay – March 25, 2010
The Patriot Declaration
"Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them." --Thomas Jefferson
Across our great nation, there is a groundswell of protest against the leftist agenda of those now holding power in the Executive and Legislative branches of the central government.
The tenor of this grassroots movement is growing louder as its number swells and its purpose becomes defined. It is a protest characterized not by a roar for revolution, but by a clarion call for restoration -- repair of our Constitution's authority and return to its standard for Rule of Law.
George Washington proclaimed, "The Constitution, which at any time exists 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."
Further, as Alexander Hamilton made clear in Federalist No. 81, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...."
Much less so is there any provision for the Executive or Legislative branches to rely upon interpretation of such language as that in the "Commerce Clause" to justify all manner of government intrusion, such as the newly implemented nationalization of health care.
James Madison, author of our Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents... 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... 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. ... There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore ... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market. ... [W]hen all government ... shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another. ... Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
Undoubtedly, the author of our Declaration of Independence would have already demanded, again, that the Tree of Liberty be refreshed....
read the rest here...
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/03 … claration/
How do you feel about the military? Because Jefferson seems to have had a different opinion than all but the most radical liberal...
Thomas Jefferson: “I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
Thomas Jefferson: “Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
Thomas Jefferson: “The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
Thomas Jefferson: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184
Thomas Jefferson: “Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
"Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009."
Out total expenditures on the militaty and global military adventures is more than the rest of the world spends - combined!
How might Jefferson have felt about taking money from the rich to provide for the needs of the poor - as in Health Care?
"Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the
public debt, and its surplus applied to canals,
roads, schools, &c., the farmer will see his
government supported, his children educated,
and the face of his country made a paradise
by the contributions of the rich alone, without
his being called on to spend a cent from his
Jefferson To General Kosciusko. Washington ed. v, 586.
As a veteran, I don't asvocate gutting the US military. I disagree with Jefferson's opinion, but we have gone too far the direction of Bonaparte - to the degree we neglect the dire needs of our own people. Moving to a balance is not heresy.
Likewise with taxes. A balance is proper. I quote Teddy Roosevelt from a century ago. (Teddy was a Republican.)
"It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty.
Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government.
Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits. "
It's a fact - not an opinion - the rihcest 10% in ths country own 70% of the countries net worth. Or to phrase that in reverse - the poorest 90% own less than 30% of the nations net worth. You start to understand why there is a move to undo the concept of America as a democracy, and substitute the limits of the constitution AS INTERPRETED BY THE RICH for their benefit.
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
Check this out. I just received this in my e-mail.http://www.globalresearch.ca/
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
listen carefully to what is said...its not a religious takeover of the country/government...BUT an understanding that spiritual values (not a particular religion) of how God "works" in life's aspects. It is...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
There's an implicit understanding among teabaggers held by most Americans that this country was founded by regular folks. The associated superstition for teabaggers is that government has been taken over by 'elitists'....
by egiv6 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
by Castlepaloma3 years ago
We all need licenses and insurance for a car, or home, even our dog and many of our jobs needs license and none were design to kill.About 80% of Americans own guns, but that's not enough. Do we really need more guns in...
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law. Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.