Constitution? What Constitution?
Every person who signed the Constitution on this day in 1787 would urge the abolition of that document and the government it created.
Every person who was delegated to represent the states in the state ratifying conventions would agree: we need to abolish the Constitution and the government it created.
Politicians take an oath to support the Constitution, almost as if sleep-walking. The oath means nothing. The Constitution means nothing.
If we were to sum up the social ideals which the Constitution was intended to protect, we could do so in three words: "Liberty Under God." If you strip away our cars, computers, cell phones, TV's, and iPods, you would see that the government created by the Constitution does not protect "Liberty Under God." The U.S. is the exact opposite: an atheistic dictatorship. We are well-kept slaves.
The government created by the Constitution refuses to acknowledge that it is "under God." The current government has deified itself, and claims to be our Savior. George Washington, "the Father of His Country" (but not ours), proclaimed,
it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour
The current regime would say this constitutes an "establishment of religion." That is an outrageous lie. Not a single person who had a hand in demanding, formulating, or ratifying the First Amendment would say that the new nation does not have to obey God's will. But the current federal government makes it illegal for government schools here in southwest Missouri to even post a passive copy of the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall. It is illegal for Missouri students to be taught that the Declaration of Independence is really true. If Americans had known that the Constitution would give the federal government power to order local schools to remove copies of the Ten Commandments and deny the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution would not have been ratified. Period.
Liberty has also been abolished.
Not only are we not a nation under God, but we are not "the land of the free."
America demanded a Bill of Rights before the Constitution could go into effect. The Fourth of those Rights is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Let's say you're an oriental grandmother. A government agent takes your suitcase, opens it up, unfolds your underwear, and confiscates your cell phone and shampoo. No probable cause, not even any improbable cause; no warrant, no testimony under oath by anyone who suspects you have, are, or will commit a crime, no description of what the government expects to find or how it could possibly benefit from this search. If this does not constitute an "unreasonable" search and seizure, nothing does. But the Fourth Amendment was intended to protect us against something. If not this, then what? But this happens every day in airports across America. It is "unreasonable" because no private business, accountable to the Free Market, would ever allow such conduct even once, much less make it a matter of routine corporate policy.
The denial of rights is routine government policy.
John Hancock and Samuel Adams tossed tea into the Boston Harbor rather than pay a tax of 3 pence per pound on the tea. A tax ten times greater is imposed on every gallon of gas we buy. Today's regime takes over half of everything we earn.
Years ago the Professor of Constitutional Law at the Harvard Law School boasted that he tells his con law students not to read the Constitution, holding that to do so would be apt to “confuse their minds.” Unquestionably, of the 6,000-odd words of the document, at least 39 out of every 40 are totally irrelevant to the vast majority, as well as to the most important, of the problems which the Supreme Court handles each term in the field of "constitutional interpretation." The Courts created by NAFTA and other trade agreements do not even pretend to be obligated to observe the Constitution. These foreign courts can overrule U.S. Supreme Court decisions and negate the laws of American legislatures.
Americans and people around the world give lip service to "the greatness of the Constitution," although no other nation operates in terms of a constitution
modeled after the U.S. Constitution. The conservative columnist Richard Grenier is correct:
It has never occurred to most Americans that their Republic – the first democratic state on a national scale – adopted a Constitution that has been taken seriously as an enduring model by nobody. I said, nobody.
Scholars in law and political science quietly admit that the U.S. is not really under the Constitution in any meaningful sense. The first step to restoring "Liberty Under God" is to admit that the U.S. is no longer a "Constitutional Republic," but an "Administrative State." The Constitution was abolished decades ago.
In the Washington Post article above, Chief Justice Roberts praises the Constitution, saying,
The Framers knew how bad it was to live under a powerful and unjust king, and so the Constitution split government power among the legislative, executive and judicial branches. That way no one of them could get too strong. That plan is more important than any one part.
In our day, the vast majority of government powers are exercised by administrative agencies with legislative, judicial, and executive powers all rolled into one bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of pages of laws are created by these agencies. Congress passes only a few hundred laws, including the renaming of post-offices and declaring the second week in October "National Pickle Week" (or some such thing). Meanwhile, James Madison declared the union of executive and legislative powers to be "the very essence of tyranny" (Quoted in A. Gulas, The American Administrative State: The New Leviathan, 28 DUQUESNE LAW REVIEW, 489, 490 ). The total ignorance of the separation of powers is seen all around us, as Walter Williams points out:
Here's what the U.S. Constitution says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How many times have we heard politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes. They can propose tax measures or veto them but it is Congress that has the ultimate power to raise or lower taxes since they can, with a two-thirds vote, override a presidential veto. The same principle applies to spending. Presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Given these plain facts, are politicians, pundits and media people — who persist in talking about a president cutting or raising taxes, or creating a budget deficit — ignorant, stupid or deceptive?
But I'm sure Williams would agree that the Executive does spend. We have just witnessed the Treasury Department spend billions of dollars to bailout an insurance company. To nationalize it, really. Actually, a private corporation has authorized itself to counterfeit the U.S. currency, putting the U.S. in debt, and taxpayers on the line. If anyone can, with a straight face, maintain that this is what the Constitution was intended to authorize, he is, as Williams put it, ignorant, stupid or so deceptive as to deserve an Oscar.® People who take the ideal of "Liberty Under God" seriously warned about the recent bailouts years ago.
Then there's the Bush doctrine of "the Unitary Executive," making the President a far more absolute monarch than George III in 1776.
Government's departure from the Constitution is so widespread, so severe, and so destructive of the ideals for which America's Founders fought, that there can be no rational belief that the Constitution is still in effect in any meaningful way. Or if the Constitution is indeed in effect, it deserves to be abolished. As Lysander Spooner put it,
[W]hether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we [now] have ... or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. HT