Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution

Pay very close attention to what this article is telling us – because our government’s disregard of our constitution is getting worse – much worse. I’m sure that at some point, we’ll be told that the Constitution is completely outdated and ill-suited to deal with whatever calamity is brought upon us (we see a lot of this already). Remember – it is this ‘old fashioned’ document that has held powerful interests in check for over two hundred years. There’s a reason the Constitution adds checks and balances to our government. Too much power is a very bad thing in this evil world. The founders of our nation were wise – they were not naïve people. They knew that over time, powerful interests could try to takeover the United States of America – from within.

If you study the Illuminati – you’ll see that there are two major obstacles to their plan for world government – the American Constitution and the American middle class. Our constitution creates a Republic where everyone has inalienable rights – not good if you want to control the world. You can’t have inalienable rights granted to the world’s people if you plan to rule the world with an iron fist. Our Constitution will not allow a small group of people to control the world. This is why it’s a stumbling block to the global elite.

The question becomes – if you’re trying to create a world government and the world’s most powerful Constitution stands in the way – how do you remove this Constitution? Do you make a direct assault and begin undermining the Constitution by direct legislation or Executive power? Not in this country. Nothing would cause us to rise up in defiance like a direct assault on our freedom. No – this would not be very effective and would certainly alert everyone to your hidden plans. The best way to begin to remove the rights granted by our Constitution is to do it very deceptively. Let’s make everyone believe that it’s necessary to remove the rights and freedoms provided to the American people – in the name of security. Let’s remove these freedoms under the guise of protection. Let’s create a perceived threat (a problem) and then propose a solution that seemingly solves the problem – while removing Constitutional rights. Now you know why the events of September 11, 2001 took place. In no time at all – the Patriot Act was passed by Congress. The Military Commissions Act then followed. George W. Bush has also signed many Executive Orders (bypassing Congress) that basically creates a dictatorship in the event of another ‘national disaster’. The rights granted by our Constitution are being systematically removed. Once again I must say that it’s an ingenious plan. Evil, but ingenious.

Why is the American middle class a threat? We (a very large group of people) wield too much political and economic power. How do you knock down such a large group of people? Would a direct assault work against us? No – not a chance. Again, deception must be used to overtake such a large group of educated people. How best to do this? If you control a nation’s economy – do you not control the people to a certain extent? You might let them focus on wealth and all of the wonderful things that wealth brings – for a time. When they have become soft and easily manipulated – you then pull the rug out from under them. Take away their wealth and their security – and watch them wither. We have placed our faith – not with our Creator – but with our money. If you take away someone’s money who is focused on wealth – you leave them with nothing. Will they not do whatever you ask in an attempt to get their wealth back – whatever the cost? You are now beginning to understand the Lord’s warnings about wealth. Wealth can come and it can go – do not put your faith in money – do not let it control you. Remember, we are ultimately fighting an evil, spiritual being. He knows what drives you. He knows where your weaknesses are.

What happens if you take away the wealth of a true believer? Does the world come crashing down? No – not at all. A child of God views a trial in this world as a test. A test that, once endured, will strengthen our faith. If we are given wealth, we will use it according to the Lord’s will to advance His kingdom. If we do not have wealth, we will still do whatever we can for the Lord. We are not tossed around by the world – it holds no power over us. Take away my wealth – fine. The Lord will provide. Try to force me to adhere to unbiblical doctrine? Try to make me worship something other than the One, true God? Now you’ve got a problem. I will not – cannot – proclaim something other than the Lord’s Word. I will not – cannot – worship something, anything – other than my Creator. Will not happen – ever. Threats will not work, persecution will not work, taking away my wealth will not work – because my focus is no longer on this world. I have been promised something greater – and that is where my treasure lies.

The following is an excerpt from the Article below. It speaks to two things – 1) our government is violating the constitution with the recent bailout and 2) Raiding the U.S. Treasury is a very bad idea. If you remember – one of the very first posts on this blog related to Alexander Tyler’s study of democracy and why all democracies have eventually failed. We’re watching the theory play out before us.

“The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.”

jg – October 29, 2008
________________________
OCTOBER 29, 2008

Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution

The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.
By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Wall St. Journal

In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted -- somewhat ruefully -- that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well. Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.

Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government. During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure. The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality. He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.

Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.

Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.

In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power. The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private, how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law. Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.

The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers. And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.

What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us. That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.

And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner. It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.

There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition. The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use), and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial) together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.

It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real, choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.

The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them. That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.

Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so. Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate? The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.

Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep" (Nelson, 2007).