Constitution
A citizen’s view
“If the Constitution had been enforced . . . “
Almost from the day of the signing, there were those seeking to change or enlarge its scope. Alexander Hamilton was notable for his belief that it should be a stronger central government. He, in fact, initially favored a monarchy rather than an elected president.
With all the differences of opinion that existed, it is no less an achievement that the document provided the country with a central government of defined, limited powers. The concept that Jefferson expressed in his famous statement, “that government is best that governs least” conveyed the understanding that government should “get out of the way” and allow the individual citizens to achieve maximum potential.
He saw government as a “stifling” force to be restrained rather than encouraged or expanded. He understood that individuals should be entitled to the “fruits of their labor” unencumbered by regulations or restrictions. This did not mean “license to do as one pleased irrespective of fellow citizens”. Quite the contrary for it was truly the embodiment of the Golden Rule applied to all and guaranteed by the government.
Let’s look at some of the areas where had the Constitution been enforced down through the years, things might or would have been different.
Start with Foreign Aid. There is no provision in the Constitution for taxing the citizens to send money to foreign countries. Even twisting the clause “general welfare” to the limit would not support such a proposition. The insanity of the whole situation comes full face with the realization that we have been giving money to Russia for many years, going back to the unbelievable “lend-lease” program of World War II. That was a farce since we never received repayment nor did the Soviet Union ever intend to repay us.
There are many other instances of foreign aid being given to rogue countries as well as those supposedly our friends and allies. Yet, the old saw that “money doesn’t buy friendship” keeps reasserting itself as we continue to pour additional millions down that black hole.
Consider Social Security. Nothing authorizes the government to be in the insurance business.
Take Education. The word does not exist in the Constitution.
Consider the United Nations. An encroachment on the sovereignty of the United States at the very least. Congress has no authority, nor does the president, to sign away the sovereignty of the country. To do so would require either an amendment to the Constitution or a national referendum, neither of which has ever been proposed.
Look at NAFTA. An unquestionable disaster for the American worker. Millions of job has been transferred to other countries, all of which has been aided and abetted by the central government. It is still a mystery as to why the constitutionality of this agreement has never been challenged.
Despite the thinking of those who want a one-world government, the Constitution in the clause stating that “treaties” are the law of the land, that argument doesn’t hold up under proper scrutiny. It would be totally illogical for the framers to have considered that the government they sought to create carried within it such a simple means of dissolution. The truth is that even treaties should stand the test of evaluation against the principles of the Constitution. Neither the UN Charter nor the NAFTA legislation do. That is why the question remains: how come? What are the forces within our government, principally congress, that keep pushing us toward greater subservience and control by the United Nations?
Try the Federal Reserve. A totally unconstitutional entity. Regardless of the platitudes offered, the Federal Reserve is no more than a cartel of the major banks or bankers of the country. It was organized with the full knowledge of those involved that it would create fiat currency rather than that authorized under the Constitution. Further, it would create an “elastic” currency that could be expanded or contracted at the will of the “governors” of the system. This is truly putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Consider for a moment what would be the present situation if there had never been a Federal Reserve System enacted. The country would probably still be on the gold standard and everyone’s money (whether coin or silver certificate) would have intrinsic value. Your life’s savings would be what the figures said in real terms. And, there would not have been the Great Depression, the subsequent recessions nor the housing bubble! That is not to say that there would not have been any problems but they would have been smaller and more manageable because the markets, if allowed to be free and unrestricted by government intervention, have a self-correcting aspect always seeking to balance the forces involved.
The simplest illustration of how this works is the law of supply and demand. If the demand for a product or service exceeds the supply, either existing producers expand or new ones enter the market to satisfy the demand. Conversely, if the demand for an article shrinks, the producers curtail production thereof or if the product they have been producing is supplanted by a better or newer one that performs better, they may go out of business. There is a definite risk/reward aspect to every business. However, there are those today who constantly want the government (actually the taxpayers) to cover their mistakes or bail them out when they have wasted their assets. Avoiding the contemporary situations, consider the bailout of the Chrysler Corporation a number of years ago. Whether you agree or disagree, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes congress to guarantee a company’s survival, “general welfare” notwithstanding. Had the Chrysler Corporation failed, there is no question but what other automobile manufactures would have “taken up the slack” or “filled the void” created (nature abhors a vacuum is a truism). Yes, there would have been some pain, unfortunately, but all would have recovered and the precedent of government subsidizing a private corporation would not have been established.
You cannot have an all powerful government and have freedom. The two are inimical and totally incompatible.
Topic: If The Constitution Was Enforced--Sent by David Ben Moshe (Read 1217 times)