A government of the people, by the people, for the people

[Foxfyre]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

 

[OKTexas]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Apparently I agreed with someone on all counts.

 

[Foxfyre]

In 2010, Scott Rasmussen published a little book on this subject that was quite informative and fascinating, and should be required reading in every public and private school and university:

Years of public opinion polls have shown a growing disconnect between the American people and the nation’s political leaders. Rasmussen’s conclusion: Americans don’t want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. They want to govern themselves. The American desire for – and attachment to – self-governance runs deep. It is one of our nation’s cherished core values and an important part of our cultural DNA. And right now, it needs to be saved.

“Self-governance is about far more than politics and government,” says Rasmussen. “It requires a lot of the American people, and it has nothing to do with the petty partisan games played by Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, even after more than 200 years of success, there is an urgent need to defend this most basic of American values.”
In Search of Self-Governance - Rasmussen Reports?

 

[DiamondDave]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

Otherwise known as the government granted itself additional power.. something it was not empowered to do... and that singular decision was the start of the downfall of our governmental system

 

[Erand7899]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

An Article 5 constitutional convention would be too dangerous to the freedoms that we have left. What we need is a constitutional amendment that reinstates the restraints, that our Constitution put on the federal government, that were removed by a corrupt court.

We need several of these amendments, but start with the most crucial, and that is one putting the federal government back into its cage.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

An Article 5 constitutional convention would be too dangerous to the freedoms that we have left. What we need is a constitutional amendment that reinstates the restraints, that our Constitution put on the federal government, that were removed by a corrupt court.

We need several of these amendments, but start with the most crucial, and that is one putting the federal government back into its cage.

I think one would do it--that one relating to No. 1 in the poll options.

It probably would require a Constitutional amendment to accomplish it to prevent liberal courts from continuing to misinterpret the Constitutional intent, But all we have to do is to make it illegal for the President or any member of Congress or anybody in the employ of the federal government to use the people's money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political or socioeconomic status. And that would include themselves.

Take away their ability to increase their person power, prestige and personal fortunes at our expense, and we would again have true public servants instead of career politicians running for public office. And that would provide the incentive and will to fix everything else.

 

[OKTexas]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

An Article 5 constitutional convention would be too dangerous to the freedoms that we have left. What we need is a constitutional amendment that reinstates the restraints, that our Constitution put on the federal government, that were removed by a corrupt court.

We need several of these amendments, but start with the most crucial, and that is one putting the federal government back into its cage.

Do you think you could get two thirds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment to limit their own power? If you do I got some sea side property in Kansas you might want to buy. Article 5 convention is risky, but so is the path we are on.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, as one small example of what would happen with my proposed amendment, would you guys be good with us disbanding FEMA other than for a small department and some heavy equipment who could move in quickly to clear roads etc. and then organize and distribute donated food, water, clothing, etc ?

 

[Foxfyre]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

An Article 5 constitutional convention would be too dangerous to the freedoms that we have left. What we need is a constitutional amendment that reinstates the restraints, that our Constitution put on the federal government, that were removed by a corrupt court.

We need several of these amendments, but start with the most crucial, and that is one putting the federal government back into its cage.

Do you think you could get two thirds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment to limit their own power? If you do I got some sea side property in Kansas you might want to buy. Article 5 convention is risky, but so is the path we are on.

With the Congresss we have now? No way in hell would they do that. But if the people rise up and put people in Congress who think like freedom loving people do, then yes, it could happen.

 

[OKTexas]

For instance, as one small example of what would happen with my proposed amendment, would you guys be good with us disbanding FEMA other than for a small department and some heavy equipment who could move in quickly to clear roads etc. and then organize and distribute donated food, water, clothing, etc ?

I would have no problem eliminating FEMA completely. Local disasters are States responsibilities, they should have their own rainy day funds to deal with them.

 

[PratchettFan]

An Article 5 constitutional convention would be too dangerous to the freedoms that we have left. What we need is a constitutional amendment that reinstates the restraints, that our Constitution put on the federal government, that were removed by a corrupt court.

We need several of these amendments, but start with the most crucial, and that is one putting the federal government back into its cage.

Do you think you could get two thirds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment to limit their own power? If you do I got some sea side property in Kansas you might want to buy. Article 5 convention is risky, but so is the path we are on.

With the Congresss we have now? No way in hell would they do that. But if the people rise up and put people in Congress who think like freedom loving people do, then yes, it could happen.

When you say "freedom loving people", what exactly do you have in mind?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Demonstrably false. The Constitution was largely ignored the moment it was put into effect.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the Supreme Court decided that providing for the general welfare in ways other than described in Article 1, Sections 8 was an independent power, the limitations on the Federal Government were essentially removed. Only way to change that now is an Article 5 convention where the States could reign in the Feds. I don't see that happening in my life time.

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Demonstrably false. The Constitution was largely ignored the moment it was put into effect.

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think you could get two thirds of both houses of congress to propose an amendment to limit their own power? If you do I got some sea side property in Kansas you might want to buy. Article 5 convention is risky, but so is the path we are on.

With the Congresss we have now? No way in hell would they do that. But if the people rise up and put people in Congress who think like freedom loving people do, then yes, it could happen.

When you say "freedom loving people", what exactly do you have in mind?

Those people who want to govern themselves instead of having an authoritarian central government telling them who they have to be, what they must embrace or tolerate, who presumes to provide for some, and who presumes to confiscate property of others for things the Constitution never intended the federal government to do.

 

[PratchettFan]

With the Congresss we have now? No way in hell would they do that. But if the people rise up and put people in Congress who think like freedom loving people do, then yes, it could happen.

When you say "freedom loving people", what exactly do you have in mind?

Those people who want to govern themselves instead of having an authoritarian central government telling them who they have to be, what they must embrace or tolerate, who presumes to provide for some, and who presumes to confiscate property of others for things the Constitution never intended the federal government to do.

Still being pretty vague. You would prefer we have no military, for example? You need a central government for that. What precisely is it you want the government to stop doing and which government are you talking about. I know that I live under three distinct governments and my daughter, who lives in he city, lives under four.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It started with Teddy Roosevelt turning the Constitution on its head when he declared the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid. Up until then, every President and Congress had gone with the Founders intent that the Constitution limited government to only what it authorized.

I do think there are enough freedom loving people left in America that we can reverse the current destruction of Constitutional intent and individual liberties. But I do think this is the last generation that will have any power to do that. It does require all of us who care to start paying attention now.

Demonstrably false. The Constitution was largely ignored the moment it was put into effect.

Using the Resolution in the OP as your guide, what did the Founders violate of the principles expressed there?

The Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams come to mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, as one small example of what would happen with my proposed amendment, would you guys be good with us disbanding FEMA other than for a small department and some heavy equipment who could move in quickly to clear roads etc. and then organize and distribute donated food, water, clothing, etc ?

I would have no problem eliminating FEMA completely. Local disasters are States responsibilities, they should have their own rainy day funds to deal with them.

I have no problem with a FEMA as I described. In the interest of promoting the general welfare, it is conceivable that a state would have its own resources diminished or wiped out in a major disaster and would need some help to get things back up and running. But the intial hands on help necessary to preserve life--i.e. clearing out debris so relief can get into devastated areas amd helping with immediate distribution of donated relief supplies--should be the extent of federal involvement. No rebuilding. No ongoing welfare. No replacement of destroyed property that the owner did not bother to insure etc. That indeed should be the state's responsibility.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you believe the USA is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? I once did. I do not believe it is that now. And to correct that situation I propose the following Resolution:

WHEREAS: The Founders of the great United States of America intended that this nation be the first in the history of the world to have a free people who would govern themselves free of the dictates of Monarch, Pope, or any other central government authority, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to secure the God given rights of the people and otherwise leave them alone to form whatever sort of societies they wished to have, and

WHEREAS: The Constitution of the United States was designed to strictly limit the powers of those elected or appointed to federal office, and

WHEREAS: The government has assumed powers the Constitution does not allow and that the Founders never intended a central government to have,

BE IT THEREFORE ACKNOWLEDGED that in order to preserve this great nation as the Founders intended that it be, the people must rise up and condemn and replace those in government who confiscate property that the Constitution does not authorize, that spend the people's money in ways that the Constitution does not authorize, and that obligate future generations with debt that the Constitution does not authorize.

* * * * * *​

I further believe this is likely the last generation in America who will have the ability to accomplish that.

Agree or Disagree

The Founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation because the central authority was too weak. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison at first, Jay, Marshall, etc were central authority guys.

They all proved it with a 13,000 man army to put down a few dozen whiskey farmers in western PA.