Budget and Government, huh? Good enough.

If you are visiting because of my reply to the Republican question, welcome. If you found me any other way, sorry to have distracted you!

This blog and others elsewhere deal with States' Rights, the 10th Amendment, and violations thereof by the Federal Judiciary and others. This is in my opinion the single most important topic that faces us and keeps us from devolving into outright Socialism. And of course, there will be nominal comparisons of one of the major parties to that form of government. $1 to the one who can guess that fastest!

Dave-ism #9: "You cannot know what the Constitution of the United States means by reading the opinion of a 21st-Century Justice of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--you know what the Constitution means by referring to the words of those who Framed the Constitution (hence the term 'Framers') through studying the text of the deliberations of the Delegates from the several States to the Constitutional Convention of 1787."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm

So there you have it! Read it if you haven't already. It is something of a task, so don't expect it to last a couple of minutes between re-runs of 'Friends' and 'Seinfeld.' But it is the most important thing facing our country today.

First, why do I refer to it as the Constitution of the United States and not the United States Constitution?

Because that is what it is.

Who wrote it? By what authority did they write it? Who ratified it?

Delegates of the several States were dispatched to Philadelphia in 1787 to deliberate the new government. Key point--read that again.

Delegates of the several States were dispatched to Philadelphia in 1787 to deliberate the new government.

Some of the States (for example, New Jersey I believe?) barred their delegates from adopting anything that would have established the new government. They required that whatever the result of the Convention, that the State Legislature be the arbiter of what should be adopted or ratified.

Thus, for the better part of 5 months, the delegates debated and deliberated the text of what is now our Constitution. But they did not adopt it. Signed, yes. And then they each scurried off to their respective States to deliver the final product for consideration.

Nearly to a man, on the day they signed the Constitution (or refused to, in several instances) the delegates stated their beliefs that there were flaws, errors, or outright bad things in this Constitution, but they were affixing their signatures in order to replace the Articles of Confederation with something more effective.

And boy, were they right! About the effective part, I mean.

With the ratification by 9 States of the new Constitution, it went into effect.  Key point--read it again!

With the ratification by 9 STATES of the new Constitution, it went into effect.

Meaning, that when 9 STATES ratified it, the Constitution became ruling law.

And who was meant to alter, or amend, this document setting up our government that contained so many inherrent flaws?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...the STATES!! Article 5.

And who is all power RESERVED (key word!) to that is not specifically awarded to the United States by the Constitution?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding...the STATES!! 10th Amendment.

Read over the text of the Constitution and the text of the deliberations as taken by James Madison at the Constitutional Convention as preserved on the Yale Law School web site at their Avalon Project. Or keep coming back here. We will be discussing further so you will be able to keep up here.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm

So why is the doctrine of States' Rights so important at this juncture of American history?

Simply put, because it is not being observed at all.

Small government and lower taxes? Yeah, and the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause are real. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.

Our government outgrew the manufacturing sector in our economy during the Clinton Administration. Not a slam on that Administration, just an historical fact that came about during that time. It would have been during Bush 41's Administration had he been re-elected. Just a date on the calendar.

Point: We have more lackeys working for Washington than Boeing, GM, Ford, and Chrysler, etc combined. Where exactly is the smaller government in bigger government?

And Bush 43 lowered taxes by about 2 cents on the dollar--great. Makes a lot of difference when gas goes from $0.89 / gallon to $3+ during the same time period, doesn't it?

And lets discuss the responsibility of the Federal Government for providing for people's retirement planning through the perspective of the 10th Amendment.

Oh yes, the 10th Amendment--the one that is called "the most abused and violated Amendment in the Constitution." You know, the 10th Amendment, as in the Bill of Rights?

Here's an unrelated (for now) question for you: Which major political party is in favor of violating no fewer than 3 Amendments to the Constitution? Not the elephants. (1st - Religious Freedom; 2nd - Gun Control; 10th - States' Rights).

So, States' Rights--why are they so important? It boils down to this:

1.) The States feared a tyrannical national government. After all, "Why would I want to exchange 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?" (Mel Gibson in "The Patriot") They wanted to maintain control over their own operations while replacing the ineffective Articles of Confederation with something that worked better and allowed better trade between the States and between the United States and foreign powers.

2.) The Senate was originally elected by the State Legislatures--nice way to keep the "upper" House of Congress in line, hmm? Relinquish the Senate from loyalty to the States that send them and what happens? Primary allegiance is to those who put you in office. When that was the State Legislature, they were loyal to their State. Now it is loyalty to the National Party of your allegiance. Tell me that I'm wrong!

3.) When it boils right down to it, who will keep the Federal Government at bay? Who will keep it from usurping powers reserved to the States if not the States themselves? Who requires the Federal Government act within its powers? If the State governments were to be eradicated in favor of one national government, who would protect the People from a tyrant in the Executive Branch?

Separation of the Powers--remember that one? It works between levels and branches of the government. The Federal Government has certain powers and there are certain checks and balances in place on these powers. And the States retain powers to, say, punish drunk drivers, regulate corporations, and educate the youth of the nation.

So why, once again, would we want a Federal Government making decisions about our retirement planning? Social Security, in typical fashion, earns something like 3-4% per year, barely outpacing inflation. You can almost do better putting money under your mattress! I earned 19% in my IRA and 401(k) last year--beat that!

Then there is the current debate over national, taxpayer-paid healthcare insurance. Huh? Am I missing something? Where is it given in the Constitution that the Federal Government, or it's Representatives, have any business discussing this topic?

OK, here's an even better one for you. How do we expect to pay for this system if we can't even pay for Social Security and righting that Titanic?

The problem with our Federal Government today is that it is taking up every issue that it is not supposed to. Name a topic of great interest at present and try me on it.

Abortion. Gay Marriage. Social Security. Healthcare Insurance. Capital Murder and the Death Penalty. Religion in Public Life.

Where are any of those in the Constitution?

Answer: They fall in under the realm of the 10th Amendment. "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."

Oh, yeah--the people! More on them in a minute.

OK, so none of those topics appear in the text of the Constitution. Trust me, I checked! So by a cursory reading of the 10th Amendment, all fall either to the States or to the People.

Well, the argument, picking everybody's hot-button topic, on abortion is that "it is a woman's right to choose." Well, how about vehicular manslaughter? Does the driver get to choose? Or how about murder committed in the act of robbing a convenience store--does the thief get to choose?

How about Ken Lay? Fraud, deliberate manipulation of the financial markets and extortion, etc, et al, and whatever else he was guilty of. Does Kenny Boy get to choose?

Who chooses whether these activities are legal, and if illegal how to prosecute them and what the penalties are?

Answer: The States. Each for itself. If you don't like the death penalty, it doesn't go to the Supreme Court, it goes to the State Legislature. The Constitution doesn't say, "All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the States...unless the Supreme Court decides it's a slow news day and it needs to approve of something the States don't want or overturn something that they do want." It simply says, the States RESERVE (key word) all powers that we are not SPECIFICALLY GRANTING to the Feds.

The States wrote the Constitution, the States ratified the Constitution, it is the States who Amend the Constitution...it is the States who basically get to decide for themselves what they want to do on ANY topic not covered by the Constitution.

More on the Explicitly/Implicitly thing in another blog. More also on the Federal Judiciary's choice to follow Precedent (John Marshall and Judicial Review) above Constitution (James Madison and 10th Amendment States' Rights) in another blog, too.

There is so much to go over here, I hope you will come back for more. And I will apologize in advance for both the length of my blogs and my verbose nature. Too many words! But the topic at hand necessitates it.

I would love to hear from you. Please comment below and email me as well.

Dave-ism #11: "I reserve the right to blow off logic based on emotion." I don't care what your view of abortion is. It doesn't matter to me. It is not the right of the Supreme Court to overturn States decisions in matters. Yes, yes, segregation and States, blah, blah. More on that later, too. Do some research, folks. You've got a Presidential candidate with a degree from Harvard Law who neither discusses the violations of States' Rights by the Judiciary, nor does he care. It is our duty to educate ourselves in this important topic because those who represent us don't know this stuff, and those who are supposed to have taught them are teaching individual choice, not collective will of the people.

Read Federalist #1 on the topic of individual rights by Alexander Hamilton. Paragraph 4. Very good comments from a fellow whom I disagree with on several other topics. But my, oh my, he nailed "demagogues" and "tyrants" right on the head.

Until next time..