It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it Constitutionally Mandated?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I keep reading threads here on all the problems we have here in the US. Since our federal government's mandated powers and those they ARE NOT allowed, are simply listed in the Constitution, I thought we could make a list of powers that the government is allowed to do that they are not doing, and ones that they are not allowed to do that they are doing. Could be a good exercise in understanding the Constitution and the corruption and largess the feds have been behind.

Please only supply Constitutional reference. Court precedent is NOT going to be listened to by me.

First a link to the Constitution text-Constitution Text



Mandates that are not being done-



Invasion by foreign people.





The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit
, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep
Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually
invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions


Wow, look at ALL of those descriptions that are TOTALLY being blown off for this ONE mandate.



Components they are doing, that they are not allowed to do-



Supporting a permanent and imperial army.



To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years


700+ foreign bases in 130+ countries


Not maintaining a balanced budget thereby enslaving the people to a permanent taxation system-



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



Favoring specific companies and groups of people when it comes to business-



To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


GM as an example.


Instituting laws that suspend the right of habeus corpus, Patriot Act-



The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.



I could continue, but at this time I would like additions or Constitutional arguments against my initial components. Also, if you have additional Constitutional arguments for my components.



Edit to add the 9th and 10th amendment-Thanks to NewlyAwakened

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Saved for other components.

Mandates that are not being done-

Components they are doing, that they are not allowed to do-

Socialist component. Brought up by getreadyalready.

Constitutional relevance-

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
oops, mistake posting please delete

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace
 


Sounds like a basis for a lawsuit against the Federal Government by multiple parties!

States should sue for breach of contract.

Taxpayers should sue.

I personally know of many people that do not partake of the Social Security system. It is not mandated that you must participate in it. There are rules for employers, but not employees. Railroad Unions are exempt. Teacher Unions are exempt. And I know of two people in my life that have been exempt as an individual, because they sued and won the right to withdraw from the system. They receive full refunds of everything they had paid in, but they also excluded themselves from ever receiving any Federal Aid, including SS, Medicare, HUD, Student Loans, etc.

I think you are on to something with your line of reasoning, but is it worth it? I am sure the states benefit from plenty of things that are not mandated and the government could pull them at any time. So, if they sue, do they risk more than they gain?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Yes, that is another component maybe. The way that the fed has controlled the states by their federal control of tax coffers and the systemic control mechanisms. Like if the states do not follow federal mandates, they hold back funds.

They first mandate the states do something supplying the funds to do it. Then over the years they remove the funding, necessitating that the states raise their taxes.

I will attempt to find Constitutional examples for the socialist component first.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Actually (and if you don't know this it's because it's not convenient that people know this) the Constitution lists the powers of government, the assumption being that the government cannot do anything that does not appear in the document (for example in Article 1 Section 8 among other places).

The dead giveways of this are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The Ninth reads:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Basically, just because we listed a bunch of rights in this little appendix to the document, doesn't mean it's anywhere near an exhaustive list.

But what are these "others"? Well, if you consider that since the very definition of power is coercion, rights are essentially the opposites of powers, then for anything that is not a power of the government there is a corresponding right of the people. The Tenth really clarifies the Ninth.

The Tenth reads:


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.

BANG! That is what makes at least 99% of everything the Federal government does unconstitutional.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Thank you, I forgot to mention the exclusionary components.

Yes, the Constitution was a list of positive powers of the federal government, negative powers of the federal government and in no shape or form was a restriction of individual rights.

Thanks for the addition.

Will add that as an addendum to the OP.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The US federal government does not actually violate the constitution on the military issue. The constitution stipulates that no funds may be appropriated for a period over two years as you showed. The military gives a budget yearly which congress then appropriates funds for.

The point of this passage was not to keep the US from having a military for more than two years at a time, but instead to make keenly sure that it was financially regulated.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
The US federal government does not actually violate the constitution on the military issue. The constitution stipulates that no funds may be appropriated for a period over two years as you showed. The military gives a budget yearly which congress then appropriates funds for.

The point of this passage was not to keep the US from having a military for more than two years at a time, but instead to make keenly sure that it was financially regulated.


The point of the clause was to ensure that congress dismantled any army that was not necessary. This clause forces a vote on the armies in existence. Without this clause, funding could continue indefinitely without the politicians having to be held accountable for it until election cycles were over.

note the plurality of "armies"

At the end of the revolutionary war, the US did not have a standing army at all. In fact, a war hero named Shay waged a militia war against the courts in his state that were colluding with bankers to take peoples farms.

The courts asked that the Feds send an army to remove Shay, but federal government was incapable of doing so because it did not have the funds to raise an army to send.

Eventually a group of private bankers organized a private army and drove Shay out.

The US was never intended to have a standing army at all. This is why we have the 2nd amendment. The people are expected to wage a private war against invaders, under the organization of the federal government, should the need arise.

The militias that were organized into armies during the revolutionary war were generally not paid, which is the way it should be. If something is worth dieing for, its worth doing for free.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


Alright, by YOUR definition, we can have a military indefinitely, even when we do not DECLARE WAR. Tell me, what WAR has been declared in say JAPAN? Why don't you explain THAT one to me?

Hyperbole and obfuscation. Constitutional arguments only I asked. Your twist of the financing component is exactly that, TWISTING.

Edit to add-

Are we at war with 130 countries at this time?



Then why do we have standing military in them?


reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thanks for the history lesson. I like that.

Hard to declare war against your own citizens isn't it?

Why do we have all the alphabet agencies? To protect the citizens or to make sure they do not rebel against the feds?

Funny how the indoctrination to tyranny is so subtle.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Constitutional relevance.

I think you left this one blank on PURPOSE.

What gives the government or the progenitor of the government the RIGHT to make our money worthless?

Our government through the fed, has destroyed the value of our currency. They have taken the barter system and have made it WORTHLESS.

What does our DOLLAR represent? Yes they have tied it to the NEW commodity, if no one understands, OIL is the new gold. Oil is ONLY traded in USD. That is what is keeping the dollar from collapsing.

This will only go so far.

I will extrapolate if anyone is wanting of the information. If no one wants to understand, I will not. Just ask and I will continue the historical reference to the OIL dollar or the USD.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I'm not sure what this one has to do with foreign invasion:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed
on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


It deals with slave trade, and lays out that slave trade can be taxed, but cannot be outlawed by Congress until the year 1808.

Glenn Beck (and others) used this to argue that the majority of the Founders opposed slavery from the start, but allowed the Southern states a limited window to engage in slave trade as a concession.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 

ETA: Word use and thought composition.

It is refreshing to see someone that has an understanding of the 9th Amendment and the relation to the 10th! Probably the two most important yet sorely misunderstood and abused portions of the Constitution.

The 9th Amendment is the catch all as you said in regards to understanding that people are different and ultimately individual (edited). It also empowers people at the most micro point of society, the individual.

An example would be a personal right to marriage or union between two people to combine forces in life, liberty and pursue happiness how they see fit.

To ensure that the individual did not go crazy and down a slippery slope in determining what one considers a right, the 10 Amendment plays the role in balancing the power between the People and the Federal Government.

Recent attempts at the Federal and State levels to 'ban' marriage between two consenting adults that are not infringing upon any other persons ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness are, in my belief a direct violation of the 9th Amendment.

Most could argue that the 10th Amendment allows the States to make a law in regards to such a union or marriage. What is neglected is what I said before, the 10th is the balance of the 9th. Order of president in regards to Constitutionality is from the United States Constitution, then the States Constitution.

If a State declares any type of union between adults as 'unconstitutional' they have directly violated the 9th Amendment of the Constitution, among several others.

A person's personally held right, if does not diminish or infringe upon others is protected by the 9th Amendment. If you want to think you are a goose, then by golly, be a goose.

--------------


[edit on 12-8-2010 by ownbestenemy]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I noticed that, did the initial date have anything to do with the slave trade?

I mean, did they put a limit on the amount of people they could import or they set it as a shutdown of the trade?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
If I came up with some music, would I have the right to release it?

Just listen-






[edit on 13-8-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Marriage. The government should have no buisness in marriage...PERIOD. Be that 'gay' marriage or straight marriage.




top topics



 
5

log in

join