Paul Milne
Contributing Member
A constituion is an agreement. No more and no less.
Let's say that you have a men's club. It is a fishing club. They form the club and they set down the rules of the club. 75 men join the club. The club is centered around setting up fishimng expeditions for the menbers, hiring guides, providing for accomadations, like that. One of the rules is that each man pays $10 per month into the club treasury. The club stes up a small representative body of 5 men to vote on expenditures.
One day one of the members proposes that $100 be spent to contribute to a World War II memeorial being built in the town.
Now, in the club's constitution there is NO language, whatsoever, devoted to donations or charity work of any kind.
The representative committe votes to donate $100.
Only one man in the club objects.
The one mans says, during the discussion, that the purpose of the club and the agreement of the members does not in any way encompass donating money for the purpose of stauary or war memeorials at all. It is not part of the purpose of the club. It was not in any way part of what he AGREED to pay into the club for. He further argues, that expenditure of money should never have come to a vote because it is NOT even within the appropriate topics of discussion. He maitains that the representatives were NEVER empowered to even DISCUSS such a thing much less actually vote on it.
The other memebers want to know why he is so unpatriotic. All the other clubs in town are donating money. Why is he so anti-American and stingy about a lousy $100? They want to know why everyone else is happy with the decision and he is the only one who is not. They ask him if the war memeorial is beneficial to the community. They ask him if it instills pride in the town. They ask him if it inculcates good citizenship in the youths. They ask him if it helps foster a group spirit of thankfulness for our fallen heroes.
The lone man can not believe his eyes and ears.
The president of the club says that the majority has prevailed and that it is good that the money will be donated. The will of the memebers of the club has been served properly through a good and fair democratic vote by the duly elected representatives to the spending committe.
-------------------
The point is this. This is a tyranny. It is the tyranny of the majority over the one. The purpose of the club and the agreement of the mebers had NOTHING to do with donating members money to a war memorial. It has nothing to do with Patriotism or uncharitability or what other clubs are doing.
The club is literally stealing the money of that man against his will to spend it on something that he never agreed to do.
He can leave the club if he wants to.
That is where the club differs from our country.
Our constituion was an agreement. For our collective benefit we agreed to allow a government do certain things on our behalf and NO MORE.
They were delegated the authority to do a highly specific FEW things.
We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay his medical bills yet alone to vote on it.
We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay for his retirement yet alone to vote on it.
We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay his unemployment benfits yet alone to vote on it.
Not for food stamps, not for medicaid not for madicare not foar Social Security, not for any of it.
There is not one section of the constitution that authorizes or empowers or delegates authority for the government to do this.
Where then do they get their alleged authority? From the 'general welfare clause'.
Here is what the Constitution says...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Does this 'general welfare' clause purport to mean that whatever representatives think is in the general welfare, they may do and say it is for the general welfare? Absolutely not!
Because that would mean that ANYTHING a majority decided to say was 'general welfare', they could do. That would mean they could do virtually anything at all at any time.
Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause
"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
What Jefferson is saying is that general welfare did not apply except to ONLY those things SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the constituion, those things that were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.
Congress has NO lawful right to appropriate my money and give it to another man except fro ONLY those specifically enumerated reasons.
Medicaid is not one of them, nor public assistance welfare, nor unemploymnet, nor Socila security. NONE of those things were made as amendments to the constituion. They were unconstitutional laws passed by congress in open and flagrant contradistinction to the plain meaning of the words.
Madison ridiculed the notion that the government could do such things.
In Federalist Paper No. 41, Madison argued at length that the general welfare clause was merely a “general phrase” which was explained in detail by the sentences following it, enumerating the specific powers granted to Congress. The idea that the term “general welfare” would take precedence over the specific limitations he described as “an absurdity.”
Madison was the principle Author of the Constituion. He ridiculed any notion that the Federal governemnt could one day operate a Social Security or Welfare system.
"Think about it. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution allowed unlimited federal powers, why bother with Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the specific powers and duties of the federal government?"
Larry Elder
Precisely.
The bottom line is that ignorant but well meaning people have radically overstepped the boudaries of their delegated authority.
When I say, radically, I mean radically. They are STEALINg from you and from me EVERY DAY of our lives.
----------
More From Larry Elder...
Did the Founding Fathers envision an intrusive, heavy-handed Internal Revenue Service that collects a disproportionate percentage of taxes from "the wealthy," often the hardest-working and most innovative of Americans?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a Congress that pays farmers not to grow crops?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a government-operated Amtrak, run less efficiently than private sector rail companies?
Did the Founding Fathers envision taxpayer funding of sports stadiums and arenas?
Did the Founding Fathers envision Congress, through the use of the interstate commerce laws, deciding to pass laws mandating minimum wages, or dictating work rules from the Potomac?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a Department of Education attaching strings to federal funds earmarked for education, a function that should be local in nature?
Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal erosion of the Second Amendment, a provision providing a right to keep and bear arms?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a federal government that hires teachers and police officers, a function the Founding Fathers expected local authorities to handle?
---------
The government means well. But that is not enough. It is stealing. It is stealing no different than any common criminal. it is wholly 100% illegitimate from the ground floor up in virtually every single thing that it does.
Flint refuses to see this. It is juts little mistakes that have 'been corrected'.
You see, Flint does not understand that the government that we had under the agreement we made in the Constituion is gone. It has morphed into an extra-constituionla legislative tyranny of the well meaning ignorants.
Flint is content to live under that. I am not.
I am willing to go to war with the 'state' over it.
I do not let a pickpocket steal from me. How much worse and more serious and grievous when the Federal government does it under the guise of law?
The Federal government does not understand why what it is doing is wrong. It is no less evil becuase it does not understand. Flint does not understand. He is no less wrong. He is merely ignorant.
It is no less evil and should continue because it has been in place for so long. Stealing is not made right becuase the public sanctions it by majority vote.
The Federal governemt of the united States is a criminal and unconstituional entity.
It is the enemy of liberty and freedom. It gives lip service yet steals. It gives lip service extracts unconstitutional levies at teh point of a gun.
People like Flint say that we should reform the system from the inside if we think it behaves wrong.
I say that this CAN NOT be done.
No tyranny can be reformed from the inside and no tyranny has EVER BEEN reformed from the inside.
In our case, it is impossible because it is IMPOSSIBLE to educate an ignorant apathetic public. It is impossible to break down the monied powers of special interests at this late stage. It is impossible to affect the two main parties.
The ONLY way that the Federal Government will be 'restored' to its PROPER sphere is through other than a peacful democratic process. No democratic tyranny can vote to reform itelf. it very LIFEBLOOD is tyranny.
It will come to bloodshed. period. Maybe it will come from without. Maybe it will come from within.
I hope that wherever it comes from, it comes soon, and tears down this pernicious tyranny that calls itself a 'free country'.
Amd if that means that the people who cherish their God given rights and their liberties go to war with people like Flint, Americans in name only, then I am all for it.
If there was ever a cause that was worthy of war, that would be it.
Let's say that you have a men's club. It is a fishing club. They form the club and they set down the rules of the club. 75 men join the club. The club is centered around setting up fishimng expeditions for the menbers, hiring guides, providing for accomadations, like that. One of the rules is that each man pays $10 per month into the club treasury. The club stes up a small representative body of 5 men to vote on expenditures.
One day one of the members proposes that $100 be spent to contribute to a World War II memeorial being built in the town.
Now, in the club's constitution there is NO language, whatsoever, devoted to donations or charity work of any kind.
The representative committe votes to donate $100.
Only one man in the club objects.
The one mans says, during the discussion, that the purpose of the club and the agreement of the members does not in any way encompass donating money for the purpose of stauary or war memeorials at all. It is not part of the purpose of the club. It was not in any way part of what he AGREED to pay into the club for. He further argues, that expenditure of money should never have come to a vote because it is NOT even within the appropriate topics of discussion. He maitains that the representatives were NEVER empowered to even DISCUSS such a thing much less actually vote on it.
The other memebers want to know why he is so unpatriotic. All the other clubs in town are donating money. Why is he so anti-American and stingy about a lousy $100? They want to know why everyone else is happy with the decision and he is the only one who is not. They ask him if the war memeorial is beneficial to the community. They ask him if it instills pride in the town. They ask him if it inculcates good citizenship in the youths. They ask him if it helps foster a group spirit of thankfulness for our fallen heroes.
The lone man can not believe his eyes and ears.
The president of the club says that the majority has prevailed and that it is good that the money will be donated. The will of the memebers of the club has been served properly through a good and fair democratic vote by the duly elected representatives to the spending committe.
-------------------
The point is this. This is a tyranny. It is the tyranny of the majority over the one. The purpose of the club and the agreement of the mebers had NOTHING to do with donating members money to a war memorial. It has nothing to do with Patriotism or uncharitability or what other clubs are doing.
The club is literally stealing the money of that man against his will to spend it on something that he never agreed to do.
He can leave the club if he wants to.
That is where the club differs from our country.
Our constituion was an agreement. For our collective benefit we agreed to allow a government do certain things on our behalf and NO MORE.
They were delegated the authority to do a highly specific FEW things.
We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay his medical bills yet alone to vote on it.
We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay for his retirement yet alone to vote on it.
We did not authorize a government to even discuss taking money from one man and give it to another to pay his unemployment benfits yet alone to vote on it.
Not for food stamps, not for medicaid not for madicare not foar Social Security, not for any of it.
There is not one section of the constitution that authorizes or empowers or delegates authority for the government to do this.
Where then do they get their alleged authority? From the 'general welfare clause'.
Here is what the Constitution says...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Does this 'general welfare' clause purport to mean that whatever representatives think is in the general welfare, they may do and say it is for the general welfare? Absolutely not!
Because that would mean that ANYTHING a majority decided to say was 'general welfare', they could do. That would mean they could do virtually anything at all at any time.
Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare Clause
"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
What Jefferson is saying is that general welfare did not apply except to ONLY those things SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the constituion, those things that were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.
Congress has NO lawful right to appropriate my money and give it to another man except fro ONLY those specifically enumerated reasons.
Medicaid is not one of them, nor public assistance welfare, nor unemploymnet, nor Socila security. NONE of those things were made as amendments to the constituion. They were unconstitutional laws passed by congress in open and flagrant contradistinction to the plain meaning of the words.
Madison ridiculed the notion that the government could do such things.
In Federalist Paper No. 41, Madison argued at length that the general welfare clause was merely a “general phrase” which was explained in detail by the sentences following it, enumerating the specific powers granted to Congress. The idea that the term “general welfare” would take precedence over the specific limitations he described as “an absurdity.”
Madison was the principle Author of the Constituion. He ridiculed any notion that the Federal governemnt could one day operate a Social Security or Welfare system.
"Think about it. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution allowed unlimited federal powers, why bother with Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the specific powers and duties of the federal government?"
Larry Elder
Precisely.
The bottom line is that ignorant but well meaning people have radically overstepped the boudaries of their delegated authority.
When I say, radically, I mean radically. They are STEALINg from you and from me EVERY DAY of our lives.
----------
More From Larry Elder...
Did the Founding Fathers envision an intrusive, heavy-handed Internal Revenue Service that collects a disproportionate percentage of taxes from "the wealthy," often the hardest-working and most innovative of Americans?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a Congress that pays farmers not to grow crops?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a government-operated Amtrak, run less efficiently than private sector rail companies?
Did the Founding Fathers envision taxpayer funding of sports stadiums and arenas?
Did the Founding Fathers envision Congress, through the use of the interstate commerce laws, deciding to pass laws mandating minimum wages, or dictating work rules from the Potomac?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a Department of Education attaching strings to federal funds earmarked for education, a function that should be local in nature?
Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal erosion of the Second Amendment, a provision providing a right to keep and bear arms?
Did the Founding Fathers envision a federal government that hires teachers and police officers, a function the Founding Fathers expected local authorities to handle?
---------
The government means well. But that is not enough. It is stealing. It is stealing no different than any common criminal. it is wholly 100% illegitimate from the ground floor up in virtually every single thing that it does.
Flint refuses to see this. It is juts little mistakes that have 'been corrected'.
You see, Flint does not understand that the government that we had under the agreement we made in the Constituion is gone. It has morphed into an extra-constituionla legislative tyranny of the well meaning ignorants.
Flint is content to live under that. I am not.
I am willing to go to war with the 'state' over it.
I do not let a pickpocket steal from me. How much worse and more serious and grievous when the Federal government does it under the guise of law?
The Federal government does not understand why what it is doing is wrong. It is no less evil becuase it does not understand. Flint does not understand. He is no less wrong. He is merely ignorant.
It is no less evil and should continue because it has been in place for so long. Stealing is not made right becuase the public sanctions it by majority vote.
The Federal governemt of the united States is a criminal and unconstituional entity.
It is the enemy of liberty and freedom. It gives lip service yet steals. It gives lip service extracts unconstitutional levies at teh point of a gun.
People like Flint say that we should reform the system from the inside if we think it behaves wrong.
I say that this CAN NOT be done.
No tyranny can be reformed from the inside and no tyranny has EVER BEEN reformed from the inside.
In our case, it is impossible because it is IMPOSSIBLE to educate an ignorant apathetic public. It is impossible to break down the monied powers of special interests at this late stage. It is impossible to affect the two main parties.
The ONLY way that the Federal Government will be 'restored' to its PROPER sphere is through other than a peacful democratic process. No democratic tyranny can vote to reform itelf. it very LIFEBLOOD is tyranny.
It will come to bloodshed. period. Maybe it will come from without. Maybe it will come from within.
I hope that wherever it comes from, it comes soon, and tears down this pernicious tyranny that calls itself a 'free country'.
Amd if that means that the people who cherish their God given rights and their liberties go to war with people like Flint, Americans in name only, then I am all for it.
If there was ever a cause that was worthy of war, that would be it.