The
origin of the Constitution of the
United States of America
By:
Tony Marano
The
Constitution of the United States of America is a document simple to read,
short in its length, enormous in its impact, and vastly miss understood. It is in that misunderstanding America finds
itself with a considerable portion of the populace thinking the federal
government is to be all things to all people, basically mommy and daddy.
With
any legislation to properly interpret the contents one must be familiar with
the intent and motivation of the legislators who enacted it. With the United States Constitution to
properly interpret the law, the intent of the Founders and their motivation is
paramount. This essay will attempt to
fill that void.
The
American Revolution (American War of Independence) basically ended in
1781. In essence the military portion
ended in 1781 when in Yorktown, Virginia (Siege of Yorktown) British Lieutenant
General Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General George Washington (an American
general – sorry about the clarification).
Politically the war ended with the Treaty of Paris 1783.
Upon
the cessation of hostilities the thirteen states continued politically bounded
by the law of the land “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” popularly
referred to as “The Articles of Confederation.”
These articles were drafted by the Continental Congress in 1776 and
completed ratification by the 13 states in 1781. The Articles assigned international
credibility to the Continental Congress in the execution of the War (The
American Revolution / The War of Independence).
They also provided a loose cohesiveness among the 13 states.
These
articles were written by men who arguably had a rightful distrust of
government. Governments as instituted by
people lend itself to becoming overpowering, interfering with the freedoms of
the people. We humans are known to be
inherently flawed; however with governing laws limiting their powers, the hope
was to reduce the inevitable march to tyranny.
The Articles were purposely written to be weak and leave much of the
governing, taxing, and legislative authority to the 13 states.
The
thought here was “most bad government has grown out of too much government”
(Thomas Jefferson). With a weak national
government, the states were free to maintain their sovereignty without any fear
from a central government. Remember the
Revolution was a revolt against a central government in London. Due to the loose configuration of the
government states here are some of the weaknesses of the Articles of
Confederation:
-
States
printed their own money
-
Some
states were making agreements with foreign governments
-
Most
states had their own military
-
National
government relied on monetary support from the states
-
Each
state had one vote in Congress
-
A
9/13 majority was required to pass laws in Congress
-
Congress
had no power to tax (a weakness? Reads
like a strength today)
-
Congress
could not regulated foreign and interstate commerce
-
No
national court system
-
No
executive branch to enforce acts passed by Congress
-
Amendments
to the Articles required a unanimous vote
The
preamble to the Articles of Confederation simply reads:
“To all to whom these Presents shall
come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send
greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual
Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.”
While
the preamble to the United States Constitution reads:
“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.”
With
this new nation and new style of governance, commerce between the states became
challenging, while foreign nation found it difficult to deal with thirteen
governments. There were tariffs between
states and different forms of money.
Some states would accept money from one state while denying money
printed in another state.
An
issue arose or more accurately an event causing alarm among the thirteen states
while questioning the solvency of the nation.
That event was called “Shay’s Rebellion.” It was a short lived rebellion of about six
months from the fall of 1786 to 1787, mainly in Western Massachusetts.
Massachusetts
to pay its debts continued to raise taxes.
People who could not pay the rising taxes had their farms confiscated,
others were imprisoned. This caused
discontent with government just a few years after the American Revolution. The revolution spirit was still fresh and
distrust for government amplified with the aroma of victory still fresh
floating along with the midst rolling through the hills and mountains of New
England (“Massachusetts” is a state in the New England region – once again
sorry for the remedial information).
A
rebellion in Massachusetts arose under the leadership of Daniel Shay, a former
captain in the Continental Army. James Bowdoin the governor of Massachusetts
organized an army funded by merchants. The rebellion quickly fell apart.
The
rebellion was short-lived while exposing the weakness of the national
government and venerability to either armed insurrection, or worse, a foreign
invasion. Upon receiving this wake-up
call from Shay’s Rebellion, the thirteen new states inhaled the smelling salts
and realized the Articles of Confederation need to be reviewed with the
intention of making the security of the nation attainable.
The
states saw the necessity to revise the Articles of Confederation agreeing to
send delegates to Philadelphia the spring / summer of 1787. What would later be titled “The
Constitutional Convention began May 25, 1787, with fifty-five delegates, ending
September 17, 1787.
Meeting
during that summer in Philadelphia the delegates soon realized the “Articles”
were unworkable and agreed to draft a new constitution for these here United
States of America.
These
were learned men well read in academics, capitalism, and representative
government. They knew governments were
inherently evil because they were comprised of men (humans). Their works that summer was to create a
government limited in its authority realizing governments govern from the
consent of the people. Not that people
have rights and privileges granted by government. Rights come from God, not government. Rights to be protected from government.
“Every government degenerates when
trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only
safe depositories.”
----- Thomas Jefferson
If
you read the constitution it is a document guaranteeing the rights of the
people, limited government, and basically no protected rights to the
government. This was the standard
interpretation of the Constitution up to the 1930’s when the President Franklin
Roosevelt Supreme Court bastardized “the interstate commerce clause” to mean
the government to be all powerful and intrusive.
Article
1, Section 8, Clause3:
“The Congress shall have Power to
regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes.”
This
clause was always tempered with the 10th Amendment:
“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.”
The
10th Amendment means if an item is not addressed in the
Constitution, then it prohibits the Federal government from engaging in as it
belongs to the States.
Back
to the “Interstate Commerce Clause:” To put it simplistically it was meant for
the Federal government to effect, allow, and promote commerce /trade between
the states. This meant establishing a
national currency and eliminating tariffs / taxes on goods and services between
the states.
As
we have seen since the bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the
Federal government has issued laws, rules, and regulations that hinder business
and does nothing to promote it. From the
1930’s to date by the continued bastardization of this Clause the Congress and
Federal Courts have ignored the intent of the Founders and promoted the
Progressive view of a Constitution to be renewed through judicial
interpretation rather than the “amendment” avenue left to us by the Founders.
ObamaCare
“Affordable Care Act” was recently protected by the Supreme Court by labeling
it a tax disregarding the administration claiming it fell under the “interstate
commerce clause,” along with their same party colleagues in the Senate and
House of Representatives.
“We the people are the rightful masters
of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to
overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
-----Abraham Lincoln
If
any of the fifty-five delegates from 1787 would return today they would not
recognize the government they thought they left us, and then ask for a
musket. It has been reported when the
Constitutional Convention ended upon leaving Independence Hall Benjamin
Franklyn was asked by a woman something to the effect:
“What type of government will the
Constitution bring us?”
Benjamin
Franklyn replied:
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
Did
we?
The
so-called “establishment clause” is an outstanding example how the Constitution
has been forcibly dragged away from the intent of the Founders.
The
first right to be protected by the Constitution appears in the First Amendment
which reads in part,
“Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.”
Here
is where it gets very interesting:
Notice it was religious liberty they protected first and against the
intrusion by the Federal government. In
the early days of the Republic after the Constitution was passed as the law of
the land, a few states still had state religions. Several States after ratification of
Constitution maintained establishment religions later to be abandoned by their
state legislatures.
It
was accepted at the dawning of the Republic the Constitution only restricted
the Federal government, not state governments.
This was explained in the Federalist Papers, a collection of writings composed
by a few Constitutional Convention delegates to explain the document to the
states. Subsequently after a few years
states that had state religions decided to abandoned the idea. Also later Supreme Court rulings established
the Constitution as primary above the states.
Nowhere
in the Constitution can one locate “establishment clause,” or “separation of
church and state.” In 1801 Thomas
Jefferson took the oath of office after being elected President. He received a letter from The Danbury Baptist
Association of Danbury, Connecticut asking for an understanding of the
Constitutional protection of religion.
Here is the text of that letter to President Jefferson:
“Sir, — Among the many millions in
America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first
opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your
Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the
chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be
less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we
beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side
of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter
between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or
effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of
civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his
neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient
charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the
Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our
Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first
object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a
minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable
rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements,
as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at
therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of
government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach
their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he
will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern
the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President
of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that
the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes
are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such
genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and
prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny
be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and
see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than
thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to
fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions
which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which
providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support
you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those
who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of
the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from
every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ
our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson
President
Jefferson’s response:
“Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment
of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on
behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My
duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my
constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those
duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a
matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none
other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature
would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation
in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction
the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural
rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the
protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you
for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect
and esteem.”
President
Jefferson wrote in the above correspondence, “….thus building a wall of
separation between Church and State.”
That
was all the Supreme Court in 1878 had to read, nearly 76 years after President
Jefferson wrote it. The Court read the
President’s letter, saw the “separation of church and state,” and labeled it
the establishment clause as it must have been the intent of the Founders
because Thomas Jefferson wrote it in that letter.
One
problem with that, Thomas Jefferson was not in attendance at the Constitutional
Convention in 1787. Mr. Jefferson was in
Europe as the United States Minister to France (ambassador).
As
if that attack upon the First Amendment was not enough, in the last forty years
the indoctrinators (teachers) in our reeducation camps (public schools) do not
teach the Constitution. Better to keep
the future voter populace ignorant of the law of the land allowing liberals to
violate it at will. When they do
instruct about “separation of church and state,” the part of the First
Amendment they quote is,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,….”
They
purposely and conveniently leave out the rest of that clause,
“….or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.”
Challenge: Ask anyone you might know who has been a
victim of a public school education in the last forty-years about the First
Amendment and religion, and see how many are unaware of “or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” Congratulations
to the liberals upon their success (sarcasm).
“Educate and inform the whole mass of
the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our
liberty.”
------Thomas Jefferson
Now
on to the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the American Civil
War (1861 – 1865) adopted in 1868. The
intent of this Amendment was to make sure free slaves were accorded full rights
and privileges protected by the Constitution.
Basically they were to enjoy full citizenship in an attempt to block
Southern states that were moving to reduce their citizenship.
Guess
what? You guessed it, the liberals came
along and bastardized this Amendment to grant citizenship to those born in the
USA of mothers who were illegally in the USA.
That
hot summer in 1787 the fifty-delegates in Philadelphia composed a document the
envy of the world giving birth to a nation with the greatest of freedoms, protected
God given freedoms. Freedoms attracting the
weary and talented to our shores for two-hundred forty four years (ratified in
1788).
Given
birth to a term the “American Dream,” recognized, respected, and idolized the
world over. “American Dream” a
derivative of a an ethos from 1776 “Empire of Liberty” morphed into various
terms finally codified as a phrase in the 1931 book “Epic of America,” by James Truslow Adams.
The
“American Dream” made possible in a land with limited government, the freedom
to grow, to achieve unbounded by a central government. Freedoms appreciated by the Founders only to
be assaulted by extreme liberals first self-identified as “progressives.” That term, “progressives” became dirty then
they masqueraded as liberals. Now as the
term “liberal” becomes tarnish due to their repulsive attacks upon our freedoms
they now are morphing back to the label “progressives.”
Call
them “liberals,” call them “progressives,” they are still present an ever
growing danger to our freedoms and the very fabric that made this country the
great American Dream.
“When the people fear the government,
there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.“
-----Thomas Jefferson
“America will never be destroyed from
the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we
destroyed ourselves.”
----- Abraham Lincoln
No comments:
Post a Comment