|
A Monumental Battle
Eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court have taken action to overrule Chief Justice Roy Moore and have ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Judge Moore was subsequently suspended Friday, August 22 pending the outcome of an ethics complaint for defying a federal court order to move the monument. These judges in the state hierarchy have shown real cowardice, in defense of the right of the people of the state of Alabama to acknowledge God in and through their state institutions as the Constitution provides, free from federal interference, free from federal meddling and intervention. That's what the First Amendment in its first clause is, in fact, all about. Alas, we find we are engaged in moral and cultural warfare. And where there's war, there's bound to be casualties. Recall that on the night he he needed them most, of the twelve apostles that Jesus himself had handpicked, one turned on him as a traitor, another cursed and swore that he did not know who Jesus was, while the rest, with the exception of John, took to their heels like a bunch of cowards. But our founders spoke of God, they spoke of natural rights. And if this is a natural rights issue, if our rights come from God as the Declaration says, then Justice Moore is correct in saying he should stand against the courts when they're wrong. The great problem in the first instance, though, is that Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, and some people say that means the government can't establish religion. They are wrong.It means that Congress can not address this issue. They can't touch it. This is very clear. Those words are simple. No lawr especting this issue. And when people say you're breaking the law if you don't do what this court says, it begs the question, "Where is the law? What law?" Do judges now get to have dictates? Are we under a dictatorship of the bench where they outlaw our foundation and they can simply tell you what to do? We have to focus on the clear Constitutional issue. At the national level there is no doubt that we are not supposed to have any kind of national, uniformly imposed regime with respect to religion. And Congress shouldn't make any laws to that effect; the federal government has no lawful basis for doing so. That was clear in the founders' statements and intentions. They wanted these issues to be handled at the level of the State governments and the level of the People themselves in and through their State governments. They were to decide to what extent they would acknowledge God, in what way, in what manner they would do so in and through their government institutions. What we're seeing is an effort to impose a uniformed national regime of atheism on religious matters and that is deeply troubling to Godly Southerners and indeed, believers across the land. Critics continue to use the phrase "respect for the law". But the rule of law does not mean the rule of lawyers and judges. It means the rule of law. They, too, are bound by law. They, too, are required to have a basis in law for what they do. So when people say some law is being broken here, we should ask "what law?" Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered removal of the monument, is a federal judge. He needs a federal basis for what he's doing. But Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Judge Thompson has no grounds, no basis whatsoever from which to address this issue. He's a lawless judge, taking his opinions from out of the air, not on the basis of the law, and imposing them against the States and the People. Judge Moore is listening to the Constitution of the State of Alabama and the Constitution of the United States, which he is sworn to uphold and which, by the way, the governor and even the president of the U.S. is sworn to uphold and preserve, protect, and defend. And that Constitution is clear, the federal government should not meddle in these matters. The Tenth Amendment leaves them under the purview of the States. The whole train of legal precedent that has been fabricated fraudulently from the bench has no basis in our federal Constitution, and to say we must simply submit to baseless dictation from the bench is, as Thomas Jefferson himself pointed out, to surrender to judicial despotism. In the federal decision, the judge himself said that the issue is whether the State can acknowledge God. He said that is the core issue and the answer to that issue is no. He is imposing, through his order, an effective atheism and has said as much himself. But the Constitution is plain that this is not a matter for the federal government. It is a matter for the people in their State government. They can have this debate. They can have this argument. When the First Amendment was written and adopted, there were 7 States that had the Church of England established. There were 5 other religions that were established in other States. There was one State that did not have an established church. There were varying degrees and extents of what this meant and how they implemented it. But in point of fact, it was in place at the time and, yes, the founders did mean that one could go even as far as England had gone if that was what the People wanted. Now, that wouldn't be the will of anybody in America today, but it shows the extent to which this amendment was meant to countenance on the part of the People of a State an expression of the desire to see reflected in the laws and the institutions their religious beliefs. This was the way it was when the amendment was written. It's time we got away from this way of believing, that we live under an arcane priesthood of lawyers and that we don't use our own common sense and eyes when we read the documents of our country's history. We should not turn over our liberties to obscure interpretations and fabrications by a legal clique that desires to amass great power over our lives and tells us what we should say. That despotic dictatorship was predicted by Thomas Jefferson and he said that we should reject it then and we must do so now. Then how do the Ten Commandments provide the basis for America's jurisprudence? It is quite clear. As a matter of fact it was acknowledged by the founders that the Ten Commandments are the 10 basic and simple rules. What more do we need to know? "Thou shalt not steal." That's laws against theft. "Thou shalt not kill." Laws against murder. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," The whole apparatus that exists in our courts and in our lives to guarantee testimony in courts will be truthful and where, by the way, throughout history the oath has been "so help me God." We are trying to destroy the moral foundation evident in every age of our history and let a clique, a handful of people, rob us of the collective right we have to the acknowledgment of God. We are rejecting the moral underpinnings of our society for which our founders fought. There's no ambiguity in their writings. They were crystal clear. The Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore is sworn to uphold, clearly says, as a matter of fact that the recognition of God is the foundation of that State's Constitution. "Our forefathers gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish this country on God. Are we going to give up that inalienable right? Because it's very serious if we do. When we forget where our rights come from, then government will take them from us."Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore
Thanks to the many patriots who inspired this article
It's Time for Florida's Hometown Democracy
Too many local politicians just won't say no to bad development. The
truth is that the current political structure has no intention of
protecting Floridians' quality of life or Florida's future from bad
development -- the power brokers are making too much money today for the
future to matter. So uncontrolled, willy nilly growth continues unabated,
even though our schools can't take it, our roads can't take it, our water
supply can't take it, our remaining beautiful places can't take it, and
most locals don't want it.
As a
result, the Florida Hometown Democracy, a nonpartisan group is circulating
an initiative petition to remove land planning and development decisions
from county commissioners and give them to voters. If a developer wants to
change a county's growth management plan to add height to a building or
develop farmland for new homes, the voters would have the final say.
To get this initiative on the November 2004 ballot, 500,000 signed petitions are needed To learn about this effort and download the petition, go to:
http://www.floridahometowndemocracy.com/
Florida's future depends on it.
Gov. Rendell Adopts Every Child in Pennsylvania
(2003-08-14) -- Gov. Ed Rendell announced August 14th that his administration will adopt every child in Pennsylvania to make sure each gets a good education. An exageration? A parody?
The fact is that the state already has "adopted" many of our children. It is called the government school program, complete with state aid. The irony is that the tax payers already foot the bill for other people's kids. In many cases those kids are being under-educated and the system is "socially promoting" them all the way to the graduation ceremony. It has come to the point where we (the State) have produced another generation of underachievers who rely on the government to educate their children because they are too ignorant or lazy to take care of their own; and the vicious cycle repeats itself.
Bonnie Blue Flies Over Jacksonville
A single white star on a field of solid blue was one of our State's early nineteenth century symbols. Lone Star flags began to appear around the South in late 1860 and that single star stood only for the state it flew in. No one was even remotely thinking of a separate nation back then - only separate republics, free from outside interference, which is what the first seven seceeding states declared themselves upon secession from the union of the United States. In the context of secession many states used variations of Bonnie Blue flags to show their independence, so the flag represented to the Southerners of the 1860's unity in their independence. The flag later became the unofficial ensign of liberty in the South in 1860-61 and inspired Harry McCarthy to compose the well-known song, "The Bonnie Blue Flag." Be proud, Florida. This symbol of our great State's independence and liberty for her citizens now flies in the park at the west entrance to historic Riverside from U.S. 17 North in Jacksonville.
Internet Links of Educational interest:
Fun Political Surveys
A Girl's Life
in Virginia - Before the War http://docsouth.unc.edu/burwell/burwell.html
Judge Roy Moore: 'Captain America' http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34192
Only one of the thirteen colonies did not have civil laws derived from the first four divine laws of the Ten Commandments - the so-called first “tablet”. Significantly, every other early American colony incorporated the entire Decalogue into its own civil code of laws. Which colony did not incorporate these first four Commandments in it's civil laws Email your answer to mailto:NEFLOS@net-host.net. The first correct answer will win a free Florida State Flag, suitable for outdoor display of your patriotism Answer to last quiz: Benjamin Franklin Congratulations to Aaron Hazouri of Jacksonville who had the first correct answer.
Let us hear from you We welcome your input. If there is a subject you are particularly interested in, please let us know. Email us at Letters From Our Readers We will feature your concerns in a future issue.
The League of the South seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honorable means. For information on how you can help restore your freedom and responsibile government, and learn the truth about the history of our country, its founders and its documents, contact the League of the South at NEFLOS@net-host.netGet the facts they don't teach you in school .
|
Promoting the "General" Welfare
Over the years the United States Supreme Court has picked the Constitution apart and has read into it that which doesn't exist, such as the right to abortion. The Tenth Amendment has been relegated to the back burner because of the erroneous
belief that federal law supercedes the laws of the States. That is true only in those matters that are reserved as a function of the federal government, such as federal appointments, certain crimes, treaties, and national defense, to name a few of the powers reserved to the federal government as specifically provided in the several articles of the document. Court after court has failed to see that the articles are related with no contradictions between them; that they can't stand alone; that provisions must not be taken out of context; and that they are dependent on each other to make a cohesive whole. In that regard it is like the Bible which shows the wisdom and the intelligence of the founders.
The Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
The truth is that government is limited and the Constitution speaks plainly that the listing of rights does not negate any that aren't listed and retained by the People. The government has no rights to be retained since the government has no rights and the Constitution sets the limits of power and authority.
Then the Tenth Amendments declares that: 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 powers not delegated means that the United States, i.e. Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, and all the federal courts, don't have powers outside of those granted and can't claim them; then powers not prohibited to the States (held by the federal government) are reserved to the States or to the People. In other words, the People can have laws enacted through their States and they can do as they please in exercising God given rights as long as those aws and activities don't infringe on the constitutionally secured rights of others.
What can't be found in the Ninth and Tenth or anywhere else in the Constitution is any provision that gives power to any federal branch, Executive, Legislative, or Court, to change the laws of any State when such laws conform to the United States Constitution and the constitutions of the several States.
The relationship of the Federal, the States, and the People, exist in a cohesive whole with each one having certain delegated powers to enable the government to function at distinct levels without interfering with each other, with all of it done to secure and ensure that the rights of the People are held inviolate.
That brings us to the general welfare clause which is a part of the cohesive whole being discussed. This clause is contained in the Preamble: 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.
Notice distinction is made between the phrases provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare with the words used. There are two definitions found in the Webster's 1828 dictionary that apply to "provide":
(1) To procure beforehand; to get, collect or make ready for future use; to prepare.
(2) To procure supplies or means of defense; or to take measures for counteracting or escaping an evil. In other words, the
President and Congress are to do that which is necessary to defend the nation.
The second word is "promote" and again an appeal is made to the 1828 dictionary: (1) To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement or excellence of any thing valuable…, as, to promote learning, knowledge, virtue or religion; to promote the interest of commerce or agriculture; to promote the arts; to promote civilization or refinement; to promote the propagation of the gospel; (2) To exalt; to elevate; to raise; to prefer in rank or honor.
The differences in the words were well understood by the founders and were used in a context that is part of the limits set forth in the document. That they are part of the whole and have specific application with regard to each section of the Constitution it is most important to understand the meanings and relationships.
The Constitution contains the formula, both in general terms and specific, for the type government that exists in the United States. Liberal courts and Congress have lifted the phrase "promote the general welfare" from its context to justify doing things the Constitution does not provide for or allow. They have interpreted promote as provide.
Look at what has happened by lifting the phrase from its context. All the social welfare programs from Social Security to food stamps are justified by the use of the liberal interpretation. Farm subsidies, grants, laws, rules, business regulation, the Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, etc. owe their existence to the wrongful misuse of the phrase. And it isn't general welfare since most of the laws are specifically aimed at certain narrowly defined groups. By changing the word and taking it out of context the paving of the road for socialism has become easier. That wasn't the intent of the founders that such should be done. The system that we were given was specifically designed to prevent socialism and other giveaway type governments.
Since the federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare, the next question is how does promote take place. The answer is given in the preamble in the following words: do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The method and means for promoting the general welfare is found in Article I that sets forth the requirements for office and elections for those offices. Then in Section 8 Congress is given the specifics for promoting the welfare in eighteen clauses; the first seventeen which spell out the limits of what the powers and duties are that Congress holds, with the eighteenth clause giving them the authority…To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Notice that the limit on government is accomplished by the phrase "vested by this Constitution".
It is ridiculous to assume and believe that the founders would go to the trouble of setting forth specific duties and the limits on the power of government after making a general statement that would give unlimited authority that would in effect negate the limit on the power as provided in the eighteen clauses. They didn't do that and those who claim they did don't understand the Constitution. That includes the Supreme Court and all other justices that so rule on promote the general welfare as being the open door for anything goes.
The general welfare is promoted through following the provisions of the Constitution that provide for elections, law making, the President's duties, and the jurisdiction of the various federal courts. The document doesn't give advantage to anyone or to any group over anyone or any other group. The provisions apply equally to all, so that each day, each week, each year, and the all the days,
weeks, and years that follow will have the same rules for government as the founders gave in the beginning of our nation.
As can be seen there isn't anything in Section 8 that can be remotely construed as allowing the many welfare and other laws that don't conform to the Constitution's limits on government. Though clause 18 allows the laws that will carry out the previous 17, the laws must be limited to those 17 and the other sections of the Constitution that give Congress specific power and duties vested by the Constitution. Neither can Congress claim that promote the general welfare allows them to pass legislation that impinges on the power reserved to the States and the People protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. For Congress to do so (pass legislation) is an abuse and usurpation of power that it isn't given by the Constitution which they swear to uphold.
There is no statement anywhere in the Constitution that gives Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court any authority to change the document to suit their whim and fancy no matter how noble or worthy the idea might be. They must take it as whole in order to understand the nature of a constitutional republic form of government. If one thing can be said about the form of government the United States has, it is that it is fair for all since it treats all the same under the law, no matter their worth or social position. By so doing the phrase promote general welfare applies to all and isn't supposed to burden those who have more in order to take care of those who have less as found in the socialistic communistic type systems. That isn't to say that there aren't those that need help but the Constitution doesn't have any provision for such personal or social type help. It is only the perversion of the phrase that has placed the government in the business of social welfare and subsidy like that found in socialis
t countries and promoted by certain parties in the United States.
Promote is a long way from provide and the founders knew the difference. Promote is more like that of cheer leaders that extol the virtue of a team. In one respect, public office holders should be cheer leaders inspiring everyone to follow the Constitution for the general welfare of all citizens in all walks of life. That was the ideal of the founders and they gave the way for it to happen year after year through the specifics of the Constitution.
The phrase promote the general welfare has to be
understood in the context of Section 8 which outlines the limited powers
of Congress. However in clause 1 of Section 8 the following phrase is
found: …provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; … That would appear to be a contradiction to the use of promote where found in the preamble. However, the understanding of it must be done in the context of the document rather than taking it out of its surroundings and attempting to prove that the actions of Congress are constitutional when they aren't, especially those acts regarding social welfare programs. If the parts of the Constitution are fragmented and taken as separate and distinct pieces having no relationship with each other, as courts are prone to do to arrive at some desired decisional outcome, then there does appear to be a conflict. But that is not the case in clause one when looked at in the context of its wording.
The phrase provide for the common defense refers to the collection of States coming to each others aid when one or more states is threatened by some force exterior to or interior to their safety and well being. Clause 15 says:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
Yet, that doesn't explain the apparent conflict between the preamble and Section 8, clause one. It doesn't have to because two different issues were in the minds of the founders. That is evident from the use of provide and promote in the preamble. In Section 8 clause one, the coordinating conjunction "and" is used to link the words common defense / general welfare. In the manner written, grammatically one equals the other. By looking at the context of clause 15 it is apparent that the founders considered the issue of providing for the common defense to be the same as providing for the general welfare. A strong common defense through the union of the States would and has provided for the general welfare of all the people in every state down through the years. No single person or group of persons has benefited any more than, or less than any other through application of Clause 15. All have benefited in equal manner.
A certain tension exists in the Constitution so that one part isn't greater than any other. The balance of powers isn't an equal balance since only one has legislative authority; the President is limited to certain specific duties; and the Supreme Court severely limited by the Constitution in types of cases it can hear with Congress having the power to limit the range of cases even more should they decide to do so. By looking at the intent of the founders concerning the powers of the branches; and the lack of provision for "providing" for the general welfare in specific ways to benefit specific people or groups of people (as in a socialist system) the tension can be seen that prevents one branch from overriding any one of the other two.
The welfare of the whole of the people was the consideration of the founders when they crafted the Constitution and the phrase under discussion proves it. Had they intended any other type of government or had intended that government provide specifically for the people through welfare programs, then they would have created a different form of governing system other than a constitutional republic. The truth is they repudiated all other forms of governance so it is pure folly to attempt to twist their beliefs to support the general welfare argument for government taking care of the masses through government programs, the type which the founders cast aside as not worthy of the people for many reasons namely for the sake of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The providing for the common defense doesn't impinge on anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (unless one is a member of the military and that is another issue entirely, not linked to the understanding of the founders), while providing for the general welfare outside of the context of the common defense and the meaning found in the Preamble, will deprive one group of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to satisfy the wants of the ones wanting government aide or relief for some problem. The terms then are perverted and the phrases are twisted to mean specific welfare which the founders rejected in its entirety.
As early as the 1800's the federal government began ursurping this welfare clause by taking tax money from the South and providing for the welfare of the North. This led to the severing of the ties of the southern States with the union and a new nation being formed. The founders of this new confederation of states wisely modified Section 1, clause 8 in their constitution as follows:
...but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.
Is it time to return to the wisdom of our Southern
ancestors? Or are we past the point of no return?
You be the judge.
Buy
Southern Products
Check
Out This Great Offer!
ClickSouth.Net A
premium internet connection at an affordable price. By
utilizing this service you'll enjoy a fast, reliable connection to
an all modern 56K v.90 national access
networks!
All at a "fantastic
rate" for UNLIMITED ACCESS
of only $17.95 a
month ClickSouth.Net Has More for Less! Proudly Serving The World From
Dixie! |
|
Deo Vindice Newsletter is published by the League of the
South, Northeast Florida Chapter as a public service to the citizens of
Florida's First Coast
|