PostHeaderIcon It Is Time To De-Clause The Beast

This is yet another pass at a subject I have blogged on before. It is the misuse of the so-called “clauses” in our Constitution.

In a number of writings, including some of the Federalist Papers, James Madison made abundantly clear, the fact that the powers of the new Federal Government were limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

However, especially since the rise of the progressive movement in the late 1800’s, there has been a growing (and successful) attempt to interpret the various clauses of the Constitution as granting the Federal Government whatever powers it deems necessary to “fulfill” the duties spelled out in the clauses. This is particularly true of the so-called General Welfare and Commerce clauses. This has had the effect of making the enumerated powers beside the point while granting the Federal Government unlimited powers.

Does any sane individual truly believe that this is what our Founders intended? Of course not. Why then are the so-called clauses there to begin with? My simple (and obviously correct) response is that the clauses attempt to establish the duties and responsibilities of government while the enumerated powers are the powers granted to the government to carry out those duties and responsibilities.

Why then has this been allowed to happen? Most of us were taught that the United States Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution because of its enumerated power to rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted by the other two branches. This belief is a tragic mistake for the simple reason that the Constitution was intended to restrain the power of the entire Federal Government – and United States Supreme Court is a major constituent of that very government. I contend that the Supreme Court, being like any organization jealous of its power and prestige, is unqualified to be the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. I further contend that the role of ultimate arbiter belongs with the States and the People. That is to say, belongs to the very powers that created both Constitution and Federal Government in the first place.

When we leave it to any institution to police and regulate itself, especially one so conflicted as an institution driven by public politics, we are bound to see that institution make every attempt to extend its wealth and power.

If we are to survive as a republic, it is absolutely necessary that the States and the People step up to their proper responsibilities and do what needs to be done.

As I have done before, I suggest the States immediately demand a Constitutional Convention. I understand that the many of you who are against this idea fear what might happen at such a convention. I counter by asking you to have even greater fear of what will happen if we continue on the present course.

Please remember that it would be the States conducting the convention and that the majority of States are not progressive in nature or in government. All they need do is cast off the chains of financial dependence they have allowed the Federal Government to bind them with via the several schemes whereby the States are obliged to behave like trained animals in order to get back a part of what was theirs to begin with. It is possible that we will never again have the number of “red” States as now. Therefore, now is the time to act.

If you believe this then please contact your State representatives and senators and demand that they call for a Constitutional Convention before it is too late. If successful in that call, then be a part of the process that selects your representatives to the convention. This could work.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

7 Responses to “It Is Time To De-Clause The Beast”

  • Seems like all we need to do is simply follow the Constitution, not have a Con-Con with the dangers that entails.

    • Troy says:

      Part of the problem is that we no longer agree on what the Constitution says, especially in regard to the powers of the Federal Government. A convention would allow the States to firmly reassert their rights. It would also allow us to get rid of some bad amendments (like the 14th, 16th, 17th for starters).


  • I understand your point, Troy; but I would still advocate my “Divided States of America” suggestion. The necessity of a new Con-Con would still prevail; but there would be no need to compromise with the Progressive States to get the modified Constitution ratified. One of the things I would advocate in either case, would be elections and term limits for SCOTUS justices. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      Dave, I am mostly trying to capitalize on the possible. Today, I know of no active movement to establish a “Divided States of America”. However, at this writing, 28 states have active calls for a convention, only 6 states short of the 34 required. Of the states not yet voting for a convention, 14 are blue or tend toward blue while 9 are red or tend toward red. This means that there are more than enough in the red/pink category to force the convention.

      As you note, it would require 38 states to ratify a new constitution and we have only 28 which are red or tend toward red, leaving 10 of the blue devils that must be convinced. However, this 10 includes such states as New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, all of which are apt to be conservative when it is needed. This would leave very few others that need to be convinced, and, best of all, a new constitution could actually be ratified against the wishes of California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts.


      • Understood, Troy. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that we have the time required to pull it off before the meltdown. On the other hand, we can force the collapse of the current federation by simply stopping the support of it. Then, each individual State could quickly do what is necessary, to attract capital to get their economy cooking again. There wouldn’t be any particular hurry to reunite on a regional basis, before we were already on the road to recovery. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Daedalus says:

    Perhaps someone would outline what the “New Constitution” would look like. I would hate to move into a situation worse than we have presently. Perhaps, Troy, cooler heads than ours would prevail and the present “majority” would give us something like O’Bamas health care legislation, hundreds of pages nobody read. The problem is not with our original constitution, but with academic and elitist purveyors of bovine detritus.

    • Troy says:

      For my part, the changes I desire are quite simple:

      First, I advocate repealing the following amendments:

      –> 14th – because it was intended to protect newly-freed slaves. We are fresh out of newly-freed slaves and this amendment is now used for mischief such as so-called “anchor babies”.

      –> 16th – to make way for the Fair Tax. Our current income tax system is the basis for much of the corruption in our government. The Fair Tax (or something like it) would stop the “selling of tax indulgences”.

      –> 17th – the Senate was intended to represent the State legislatures and we should give the States back that portion of their authority.

      Second, I advocate 2 new amendments:

      –> What I call the Equality Amendment. This amendment would state quite simply that all laws, statutes, regulations, rules, etc. implemented by the Federal Government would apply equally to every citizen of the United States of America, including members of government whether elected, appointed or employed.

      –> A “clarifying amendment” that would state that no branch of government may delegate or otherwise assign a power enumerated to it by the Constitution to any other branch of government or to any non-government entity, including so-called “Government Sponsored Entities”


Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links