While I think the American People who accepted the Constitution of the United States of America thought that the Constitution would be seen by everyone in the context that I have given it more explicitly in my own rewrite of the Preamble, our modern federal courts, legislature, and president do not. Neither do most of our academics. If only the Preamble said this explicitly, our individual rights would be much more secure:
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. This Constitution will provide the government a few explicitly enumerated and very limited powers. The government of the United States of America shall not deny or disparage the equal, sovereign, and many rights of the individual citizens of the United States of America to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
If the Preamble did say this, it would have served as a strong protection against the present broad interpretation of federal government powers and the very narrow interpretation of the scope of individual rights. This is not to say that an always power-voracious government would not commonly choose to ignore the limits of its power as ours now does. It does not mean it would not often trample our individual rights and treat them as highly unequal rights as it now does either. No, our government would likely still be tyrannical, but its road to exercising that tyranny would have been more difficult and it would not be so far down the path of tyranny as it now is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
The preamble is fine. The constitution is fine. The trouble we face is that our servants and trustees are simply ignoring their contract (i.e. constitution and oath/affirmation). United States (also known as "States united" in various Supreme Court opinions) and United States of America are separate entities.
STRUCTURE OF THE PREAMBLE
TRUSTOR: We the People (trustors and sovereigns)
VENUE: of the United States
INTENTION: 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
BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,
ACTION 1: do ordain (to declare the law)
ACTION 2: and establish (bring into existence)
WHAT: this Constitution (articles of incorporation for trust)
TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. (trustee and servant)
As you can see, every element of a trust is present in the preamble. There are no words, expressed or implied, in the preamble or throughout the Constitution that the people surrendered their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. For the reason that all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.
The constitution is not a social compact between the people and the government. Read the preamble of the constitution. The constitution is a decree from the people to the government. Put differently, the sovereigns/trustors are speaking to their servants/trustees. We the people ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America, NOT for ourselves.
Yes, the Constitution is fine, indeed, very fine. Yes, it is not a social contract. The Framers had good reason to think the Bill of Rights was not needed because the government was not given the power to deprive the People of their sovereign, equal rights. Indeed, if government attempted to do so, it would be an illegitimate government. Unfortunately, the People have been mislead by power-seeking politicians and judges over many years into thinking they only have those rights given to them explicitly by the Bill of Rights and that they therefore only have rights because the government has given those rights to them. The reality is as you say that "The constitution is a decree from the people to the government."
I simply think that it would have been all the clearer to Americans today that we have equal, sovereign rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness which are independent of our government if the Framers had made it more clearly explicit that the decree of the people did not compromise those sovereign rights. I am sure that for them that was fully understood and therefore my wished for additions were unnecessary. But, clearly Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and many others of the Progressive viewpoint and some of the Conservative viewpoint view the Constitution as a social contract or even claim the state is sovereign and only in so far as it chooses to be benevolent do the people have any rights at all.
The willful misinterpretation of the Constitution is extensive and quite beyond belief. The ignorance of the people about the constitution is incredible, but clearly engineered in great part by a wholly inadequate government run and guided education system. That education system clearly has a severe conflict of interest with respect to teaching young people about their equal, sovereign rights and about the severe limits of the power of the government.
I am presently sitting on pins and needles with concern that the federal courts may not find ObamaCare unconstitutional. The mainstream media constantly makes the claim that most legal experts believe it is constitutional. Yet, it clearly is not. And, if it is not repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I will be put in prison for up to 5 years for refusing to submit forms claiming that I have a government-approved health insurance plan and that I have forfeited the ownership of my body to the government. This has me wishing the Framers had somehow made it a little more difficult for tyrants to obscure the meaning of the Constitution and a little easier for modern Americans to understand their viewpoint.
"That education system clearly has a severe conflict of interest with respect to teaching young people about their equal, sovereign rights and about the severe limits of the power of the government."
Bingo! Our education system (public, private, and homeschool) does not teach civics. The very first school that was mandatory (which was government operated) was populated under military supervision in 1852 in the State of Massachusetts. The State of Massachusetts was the first State to have mandatory schooling. No surprise, other States followed suit. The children were escorted to the school against the wishes of the parents by the military, not the police, but by the military. Abuse of power, of course. Why was it so important for the government to go to that extreme? The key to population control is ignorance and mindset.
After all, history shows that despotism begins on the basis of diluting education. An uneducated population is easy to take over without any violence and easy to control it. From the 1850s to about the 1940s, the government gradually stripped away civics and replaced it with a new subject called "American Government." What is the difference between civics and American Government? Civics, if you look it up in the dictionary (at least the one I researched), is the study of the relationship between the people and the government, and that branch of philosophy dealing with personal rights.
When we declared our independence in 1776, we were not an uncultured people. We were not bushmen, we were not uneducated. Textbooks like to leave us the impression that we were random idiots who decided to rebel against the monarchy. Just to put it in perspective, in 1776, The President and Fellows of Harvard College was 140 years old. We were a cultured and educated civilization. We had our customs and usages (i.e. common law). We were equal to Great Britain in terms of our development.
Textbooks like to tell us that the United States is over 230 years old. Well, in reality, when speaking of the culture here, we are over 400 years old. We were well established in our own ways. Out of those experiences, we developed the constitution. Whom do I mean by "we?" I mean "we the people." It is unfortunate that our education system is dumbing down people generation after generation. It forces us to reeducate ourselves. We have lost our sense of culture and why we broke away from the British Crown.
Education is key to keep a republic alive. Our founding fathers realized that importance. Are we keeping our republic? Not really, but again, this is due to poor education. People hardly know the difference between a republic and a democracy. They believe those two term are interchangeable (but actually they are different). People hardly know their relationship between themselves and their servants/trustees.
If we wish to keep our republic alive, then we must focus on education and going back to true civics, NOT "American Government" hogwash.
I am certain that all of this is dictum to you.
"That education system clearly has a severe conflict of interest with respect to teaching young people about their equal, sovereign rights and about the severe limits of the power of the government."
Bingo! Our education system (public, private, and homeschool) does not teach civics. The very first school that was mandatory (which was government operated) was populated under military supervision in 1852 in the State of Massachusetts. The State of Massachusetts was the first State to have mandatory schooling. No surprise, other States followed suit. The children were escorted to the school against the wishes of the parents by the military, not the police, but by the military. Abuse of power, of course. Why was it so important for the government to go to that extreme? The key to population control is ignorance and mindset.
After all, history shows that despotism begins on the basis of diluting education. An uneducated population is easy to take over without any violence and easy to control it. From the 1850s to about the 1940s, the government gradually stripped away civics and replaced it with a new subject called "American Government." What is the difference between civics and American Government? Civics, if you look it up in the dictionary (at least the one I researched), is the study of the relationship between the people and the government, and that branch of philosophy dealing with personal rights.
When we declared our independence in 1776, we were not an uncultured people. We were not bushmen, we were not uneducated. Textbooks like to leave us the impression that we were random idiots who decided to rebel against the monarchy. Just to put it in perspective, in 1776, The President and Fellows of Harvard College was 140 years old. We were a cultured and educated civilization. We had our customs and usages (i.e. common law). We were equal to Great Britain in terms of our development.
Textbooks like to tell us that the United States is over 230 years old. Well, in reality, when speaking of the culture here, we are over 400 years old. We were well established in our own ways. Out of those experiences, we developed the constitution. Whom do I mean by "we?" I mean "we the people." It is unfortunate that our education system is dumbing down people generation after generation. It forces us to reeducate ourselves.
Education is key to keep a republic alive. Our founding fathers realized that importance. Are we keeping our republic? Not really, but again, this is due to poor education. People hardly know the difference between a republic and a democracy. They believe those two term are interchangeable (but actually they are different). People hardly know their relationship between themselves and their servants/trustees.
If we wish to keep our republic alive, then we must focus on education and going back to true civics, NOT "American Government" hogwash.
Thanks for your interesting comments. I agree fully with them.
Even before the Civil War, American socialists were working to get states and local governments to set up government-run school systems. There was an explicit understanding among them that this would allow the government a greater control of the people and the expansion of the powers of government. The Prussian socialist school system was held up by very many of them as very worthy of emulation by Americans. The Johns Hopkins University and the U. of Wisconsin were among the many strongholds for this viewpoint in the late 1800s. This admiration of Prussia and its schools certainly implied a purpose in itself beyond a belief that the young should have some knowledge.
"The Prussian socialist school system was held up by very many of them as very worthy of emulation by Americans."
Again, hit the nail on the head. Our entire education system is modeled after such. The State of Massachusetts was the first state to instituted such system. By the way, why is the State of Massachusetts always the first State to implement collectivistic programs, and other States follow suit? It seems that the collectivists love the State of Massachusetts as a testing ground for everything collectivism. If it is "successful," other States will follow.
There is a very strange sense of successful among the Progressives. They apparently think the Massachusetts mandated health insurance system was a success and pushed along ObamaCare in its footsteps.
Rather like judging a trip to the grocery store a success after driving off a 200 foot cliff on the way there. Progressivism is a distinctly otherworldly viewpoint.
Post a Comment