The Constitution what's not there

My Recent Posts

The word democracy is not there. I checked.

 

Nor is the word republic. The word used is union. I guess the founding fathers were in favor of unions. Maybe they were secret communists? Did you know that Christ was a communist? Read what he said, supposedly. Not one word Christ supposedly said is in The Constitution. He never said all men are created equal. Or women. Or men and women. Sorry, I digress.

 

No where did I find that the founding fathers had contempt for government. Come on people, they're writing a document forming the foundations of a government. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of people who don't believe in the power of government rule over a free people to be forming a government to rule over free people? Are you calling my founding fathers hypocrites?

 

What the founding fathers talked about in terms of government were specific actions that the believed invalidated the right of a government to continue in existence ruling over a people. A big one was taxation without representation. Another was locking people up without giving the opportunity to defend themselves against their accusers. Another was having people in positions of power where they could not be extricated by legal means. There are many of these items, but no where does it say, no government. It all leads to the conclusion that government should be accountable to the governed. What was detested was a monarchy where rule was handed to heirs without debate and elections. Another was religion, where people who adhered to religious concepts that did not conform to a state idea would be persecuted for their beliefs. There is also some evidence that the founding fathers feared having a standing army, but a standing navy was seen as essential for obvious reasons.

 

In reading the comments in Jeanne's post, I noticed that people really don't understand how our government branches work. This idea that courts make law when they rule on the legality of an existing law, or a previous interpretation is silly. The law is what it is and the interpretation is what it is. If congress doesn't like how a law is interpreted, it can be rewritten and put to a vote. All courts are doing is what they are asked to do, to judge the merits of a law based on the judges' understanding of the meaning of The Constitution. There are so many examples that I'll let you all pick your favorite flavor.

 

But to say that one interpretation is making law and another isn't is ridiculous. All judicial decisions make law. They make the law legal or illegal. That is their role. Sorry.

 

I think the founding fathers were actually Taoists. They created The Constitution, which is the way, a simple guide for the way all things would be constructed thereafter. It's a simple formula; freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of private property, freedom from imprisonment without due process, freedom to confront your accusers, freedom to pursue happiness, liberty, justice, freedom to worship as you deem fit. The word that strikes one when reading The Constitution is freedom, all of the areas where the goal is promote individual freedom over the tyranny of the powerful in any form. It gives us rights, all of us. Gives us all the same rights, and with rights come duties, the most basic being to respect the rights of others that you appropriate for yourself. To be willing to protect those rights even to your own detriment.

 

The Civil War wasn't about slavery at the beginning. It was about the right of a central government to make law. Slavery became the issue because how could you have slavery in half a nation? How could slave traders be allowed to come into non-slave states and take people who were now deemed free back into slavery? It created a non-negotiable stalemate that led to war. Mississippi never ratified the 13th amendment, I was amazed to see.

 

So upon these basic principles, over time, the entire enterprise of rules, regulations, and responsibilities grows just as the Tao predicted it would, to the point where it becomes unworkable. All of nature is like this, people. Nature always gets to a point of unworkability and then it adapts. There are not too many regulations. There are not too many regulators. There are not too many soldiers, or bases, or weapons systems. There are not too many departments. There are not too many cabinets. There are not too many laws. There is not too big a deficit. There is not too much or too little of anything, because in approaching government this way, judging it by numbers, but size, by artificial criteria, we miss the point. The point of government.

 

The point of government is to do the job of getting people to work together. That's all. The rules of any system are designed to make a framework that makes it possible. A dictatorship uses force and favors, the threat of punishment and the desire for advancement. Freedom is not the point. In our system, as set up by the founding fathers, freedom is the point. And it's not simple to impose freedom. One person's freedom may impinge on another's and that's why regulations get put in place. That's why laws about education are enacted. That's why we have a military spending such a vast amount of money. I could go on and on. All of these measures are sustained to try and ensure the greatest freedom for the greatest number. But, when something becomes so complicated, clumsy, and unworkable, simple solutions start to dominate even if they are idiotic.

 

So out of a system based on real values, we now have everything reduced to dollars. Dollars are speech. Dollars buy association. Dollars buy justice. Dollars are freedom. It's time to get back to ideas.    

 

  

 

   

Comments

mark henry smith Added Feb 6, 2018 - 3:02pm
I was writing the comment and got logged out so I have started to get an innate sense of when time is up, because the time remaining icon disappears when writing a new article. I was saying that there is so much more to take away from Jeanne's piece, but the thread was growing unmanageable. I look forward to her next.   
Dave Volek Added Feb 6, 2018 - 3:12pm
Very well done.
 
 
 
 
mark henry smith Added Feb 6, 2018 - 3:57pm
Thanks Dave. One of the things I didn't mention was how important it is to teach the basics of our Constitutional framework in schools. Jeanne's piece was eye opening to all of things assumed but unsubstantiated. I don't ever remembering having any instruction in this area. Maybe it's one of those things that the people in power don't want the masses discovering, how much The Constitution is being perverted. Doesn't cash bail violate The Constitution by restricting a person's liberty before being found guilty of a crime? I can understand locking up a violent offender based on the situation, but for a minor offense? And there is so much more.   
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 4:18pm
re "The point of government is to do the job of getting people to work together. That's all. The rules of any system are designed to make a framework that makes it possible. "
  This is the communist interpretation of government. Government has a singular purpose: protect the value of the currency. They make laws that do this. Borders stop counterfeiters, smugglers and pirates. Anything more is communism. Look up "The Law Merchant" by Byron Beers. There are others on the Law Merchant but this is a clear and concise intro, written by a high school math teacher.
  Yes the Law Merchant is real, its quoted in many, if not all old law books, the kind of books that are about actual law, not this commie pinko administrative law we are being subject to. The new commie pinko attorney doesn't know what the Law Merchant even is.
  As far as the USA being a republic, it has a constitution so technically it is a Republic. Not everything is subject to suffrage, it has no power above it so its a Republic. What a Republic is and isn't is in Aristotle's "The Politic".
  Ben Franklin once answered a question from a woman who asked "What kind of government are you giving us Mr. Franklin?" His answer "A Republic Ma'am - if you can keep it"
  I have a refridgerator, no where on it does it say "this is a refridgerator"
  Also, the United States is a corporation registered in Delaware which is not an American jurisdiction.
  United States IS NOT America.
  People that work in Delaware are not governed by the constitution. Ask any security guy that is there when you are. Same goes for the City, the city Of London, a few blocks within London, same with the Vatican City.
  To restore the constitution, the capital must go back to Philly.
 
 
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 4:22pm
from wiki "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions...."
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 4:24pm
"The United States of America (USA), often called the United States (U.S.) or America, ..." https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
 
Read carefully what that says. Up here we have Canadian Tire, it is of Canada. Canadian Tire is not often mistaken for Canada, but America is often mistaken for the United States.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 4:28pm
re wiki: It can be sometimes wrong and even stupid such as this: "At its core, the literal meaning of the word republic when used to reference a form of government means: "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen".
  That is NOT what republic means. Re Public means returned to control of the public AND has laws that gov cannot break and that voters cannot change. Aristotle is excellent on politics, so is Plato. If you haven't read them and you are talking about politics, you may as well be an accountant that cannot add.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 4:34pm
re ""a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen".
 
That is a democracy, NOT a Republic.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 6, 2018 - 5:14pm
Mark S., good article but It think wsucram15's article 'The Constitution a discussion about Democracy' was better.
 
You seem to get off on a few wrong foots. I do not understand how you can say, "All courts are doing is what they are asked to do, to judge the merits of a law based on the judges' understanding of the meaning of The Constitution. " and then say, "All judicial decisions make law. They make the law legal or illegal. That is their role." So which role do they have Mark? My opinion Mark is that the first role was the intention of the founders, but the second role is what actually occurred.
 
I am also troubled by this statement, "How could slave traders be allowed to come into non-slave states and take people who were now deemed free back into slavery? It created a non-negotiable stalemate that led to war." If a horse ran away and crossed into another state. That horse could be returned. As far as the law is concerned before the 13th Amendment a slave is property just like the horse.
 
The issue of slavery is from the Declaration of Independence that all laws shall be consistent with Laws of Nature and of Nature's God and all men are created equal. The Constitution formed a government around the foundation of the Constitution.  All the issues in the declaration were addressed and the only one that was broken was slavery.  It was clear in the 1700's and in fact 1700 AD that even a two year old knows the difference between a human and a horse, monkey, tree, etc..  So slaves are humans.  The problem that developed in America first was that Thomas Jefferson broke with the precedent set by the Continental Congress when forming the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and allowed slavery in the Louisiana Territory. I have not studied what compromises he had to make, but from his beliefs and past actions this was one of them. 
 
Mark the courts and congress created laws to extend slavery into all of the territory. The Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 was the last straw and the fact that the courts supported extending slavery.  The Republican party formed that year in Wisconsin.  It's candidate for president in 1856 lost miserably, but the Republican built up the party and presented a convincing case during the mid term elections of 1858 winning control of the House of Representatives.  I do not know how many Senate seats they won.  Such a win suggested that the same case would win them more seats in both houses and the White House in 1860. That came to pass. 
 
The real issue for the Democratic Party was that a Republican White House and Congress would undue all the favorable legislation for slavery extension into the Louisiana Territory and even reverse the acceptance of slavery. Laws would be put on the books to reverse court decisions.  The slave states east of the Mississippi would be prevented from expanding and thus would become forever a minority.  Slavery as the founders intended would end within a hand full of decades driven to extinction by tariffs and other economic means. That Mark was the real reason for the Civil War.
 
Finally Mark I find the statement a problem, "Nature always gets to a point of unworkability and then it adapts."  I think the Nature adapts long before it gets unworkable. What you are really talking about is a government that violates Laws of Nature and of Nature's God by saying that Man makes better laws then Nature so we can ignore Natures laws. That is the situation we are in Mark.  Monarchs, religious institutions, and socialism in all its forms believe in the superiority of Man's laws.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 5:31pm
@ Thomas re " "All courts are doing is what they are asked to do, to judge the merits of a law based on the judges' understanding of the meaning of The Constitution. " and then say, "All judicial decisions make law. They make the law legal or illegal. That is their role."
 
This is exactly right in modern law. In Roman law it would be considered wrong because the Judges decision, although interpreting law to a particular situation, writes law for that situation, this law only applies to the single case.
  In modern law, (Christian law practiced by Jews but judged by Christians), judges write laws and attorneys cite precedences for judgements in identical cases of past. Justinian would not permit this because it is a form of nihilism, as explained in book 4 of Plato's Republic. Laws become a tangled mess.
  This dialectical nature of law prompted Justinian to write code, but code never exactly fits any one case. So that's where the judge comes in. Actually its a tribunal, the judge is just a master of ceremony.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 6, 2018 - 5:36pm
re "What you are really talking about is a government that violates Laws of Nature and of Nature's God by saying that Man makes better laws then Nature so we can ignore Natures laws."
 
By "nature" the old scholars meant the nature of man and natural law as based on original right as given by God. Mans nature was a creation of God. Kant cleared this all up. It was a product of confusion between rationalism and empiricism. This confusion is what Kant cleared up and is what makes him famous.
  Kant would say natural law is that the lion eats the gazell. Transcendent law is the phrase that replaces "nature of man" / natural law. Transcendent law is based on the Golden Rule.
George N Romey Added Feb 6, 2018 - 5:52pm
Very good article Marko. Our founding fathers seem to be trying to find something between a monarchy and a Democracy. They didn’t want Kings but clearly also didn’t want the masses to rule. They were men of their times, in other words very ignorant of certain things.
Leroy Added Feb 6, 2018 - 6:07pm
"This idea that courts make law when they rule on the legality of an existing law, or a previous interpretation is silly."
 
How do you explain Roe Vs Wade?
Flying Junior Added Feb 6, 2018 - 10:16pm
Here it is Marko.  The word republican in Section Four of Article Four.

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.
 
Perhaps the authors were content to describe a functioning structure for a republic without actually defining it as a republic.
Flying Junior Added Feb 6, 2018 - 10:29pm
Leroy,
 
I think Mark addressed your question in paragraph six of his article, exploring the idea  little deeper.  You may not agree with his conclusion.
opher goodwin Added Feb 7, 2018 - 6:15am
Well the founding fathers were certainly reacting to Britain with its Kings and stifling theocracy. Some were atheists. But isn't it ironic that it is the evangelist nutters who control America? Can anyone get elected without pretending to be highly religious? Isn't it a backdoor theocracy? Trump plays that game doesn't he?
Leroy Added Feb 7, 2018 - 7:38am
"I think Mark addressed your question in paragraph six of his article, exploring the idea  little deeper.  You may not agree with his conclusion. "
 
Mark>>"But to say that one interpretation is making law and another isn't is ridiculous. All judicial decisions make law. They make the law legal or illegal. That is their role. Sorry."
 
FJ, I would go a little further and say that judicial decisions determine what is not law, or, at least, that is the way it should be.  It shouldn't make law.  I think I understand what Mark is saying: once the law is validated by the courts, then it is the law.  In the case of Roe Vs Wade, the courts created law out of thin air.  Ok, you can say it was based on the laws or the Constitution, but it is a rather tortured interpretation.  I do not comment on whether I agree or disagree with the result; but, when the courts make law, it usurps the power of Congress.  The courts should merely decide if the law conforms to the Constitution or not.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 7, 2018 - 9:28am
Our Founding Fathers were wise men and sought a limited government with checks and balances to limit power.  Our Constitution is alive and well!
Dave Volek Added Feb 7, 2018 - 12:19pm
Thomas
 
"How could slave traders be allowed to come into non-slave states and take people who were now deemed free back into slavery? It created a non-negotiable stalemate that led to war." If a horse ran away and crossed into another state. That horse could be returned. As far as the law is concerned before the 13th Amendment a slave is property just like the horse.
 
In my understanding, African-Americans in the north who had been given their "freedom papers" could not be arbitrarily returned back into a position of a slave. I think was what Mark was referring to.
 
Of course, an escaped slave would still be property from a legal perspective. But many abolitionists in the north disregarded that law.
mark henry smith Added Feb 7, 2018 - 1:01pm
Thank you all so much for commenting.
 
You say republican, I say republic, you say pelican and I say pelipluck. Thanks Flying Junior. I missed that. The copy in the dictionary is in very tiny print. And I must say it's incredibly dull reading. Not one joke in the whole work.
 
The question of abortion becomes a question of the rights of a person to have sovereignty over their own body, a constitutional question of rights. Different courts have interpreted this differently. When a court interprets a law to be unconstitutional, I would not say that they are making law. They are upholding law, since The Constitution is deemed to be the highest legal standard. I believe the document is purposely vague in some areas to allow for interpretation based on the changing values of society. In protecting free speech, it says, free speech but does not say specifically what is or isn't free speech. In the right to bear arms, there is no saying what those arms should be limited to, but I would think if the founding fathers knew about atom bombs they would not have wanted private citizens possessing them.
 
What is a well regulated militia? Why is the well there? Why not just a regulated militia? Why is the proviso about a militia in there at all? It would seem to me that it would make bearing arms a condition of being in a well-regulated militia. Maybe the NRA is considered a well-regulated militia? Or not.
 
This question of what rights we have legally and not is in constant flux, and that's a problem, but it is also the basis of American stability.
 
Doug, man, you need to switch to decaf. Love Kant and certainly being one of the preeminent philosophers of his time meant he had influence, but I Kant give him that much. English common law is mentioned in The Constitution so I would have to credit John Locke, etc...      
Dave Volek Added Feb 7, 2018 - 1:48pm
Leroy
 
. . . but, when the courts make law, it usurps the power of Congress.
 
I have to agree in principle. Elected representatives with due democratic process are better at making laws than a lone judge with a burr in his saddle.
 
But in our increasingly complex world, our legislatures are too obsolete to pass new laws or repeal old laws in a timely manner. If we don't want to change the system, then we just have to accept the lone judges are better able to move the legal code into modern times than our elected officials.
mark henry smith Added Feb 7, 2018 - 3:06pm
Dave, the system has become so corrupted by money and special interests that the legislative branches have withered and no longer bear fruit. It's all become a money grab and at least the courts are somewhat immune, not having to be whores to keep their jobs, but still open to seduction, I would believe, still, they can maintain some objectivity.
 
That's what's being lost in the winner-take-all scrum, objectivity. Trump is epitome of a person with no objectivity and his supporters appear equally myopic. In looking back at The Constitution we get some perspective on just how far we've gotten from the basic principles our fore-fathers grounded this nation on. I think to get back to something sustainable we'll have to have a revolution, and it will have to start will an end to this insane money tree that our government has become at the urging of big money.
 
Entrenched money interests are our government and let the people be damned. This is what we see from both sides. Obamacare was the biggest windfall for big insurance and went against basic Constitutional safeguards. It's why I supported Trump over Hillary, if I was forced to choose.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 7, 2018 - 6:35pm
David V.,  your statement indicates that the former slave was not property in the states eyes.  That was challenged in the Supreme Court, and if I remember correctly the person was returned.  If the states wanted to they could challenge every attempt to return a slave.   Thus the cost would grow to a point where the effort was not cost effective.  ref: In my understanding, African-Americans in the north who had been given their "freedom papers" could not be arbitrarily returned back into a position of a slave.  So I agree with your last comment.  The abolitionist were willing to make the effort too costly.
George N Romey Added Feb 7, 2018 - 8:01pm
The fact that our founding fathers could never have imagined a multinational corporation vying for political favors means they didn’t provide for safety guards against purchased corruption. I think it’s a time for a rewrite or maybe even a break up.
mark henry smith Added Feb 8, 2018 - 11:24am
Tom, and George, and all,
 
I'm back into novel writing and it tires me, so please forgive me if I seem a little lost here.
 
The entire idea of owning people without their consent to be owned seems counter to our principals of free will. If when slaves were being abducted, often the losers in tribal battles, they had been asked, die or be sold, would that suffice to make slavery legal? I think not since it would be a contract agreed to under duress. I would argue that many of the financial agreements people are entering into now are agreements entered into under duress and are a form of indebted slavery. As George often points out.
 
I personally don't think we have to break up. I actually think a bigger government is the only way to deal with these enormous, multinational corporations, to even get bigger, but create efficiencies in how government provides services. A national health service would save money based on every independent study by making record keeping more efficient, and removing the delayed care that makes a small problem at the outset a chronic condition.
 
Something has to be done to reel in the military, to spend money more efficiently and have the military be more involved in social outreach. Too many soldiers means too much incentive to go to war with false confidence of success, as we've seen repeatedly with the last three administrations. No where in the constitution does it say we should have s standing army or be keeping forces in foreign countries to prop up regimes. The reasons for an army are specific and relate to preventing invasion or internal revolt. I don't have my copy of The Constitution with me, so correct me if I'm wrong.     
George N Romey Added Feb 8, 2018 - 11:44am
We’ve let corporations and the military get too big. We’ve dealt with their ability to reek havoc by enlarging government. Government has not exploded due to the welfare state but because of the multinational corporations and Wall Street. Moreover for what government spends their aren’t very cost efficient.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 8, 2018 - 1:20pm
Mark H. S., you seem to think bigger makes better.  The problem with bigger is that politics inside the big organization become more important then serving the customer government, charity, or business.  This happens because as you go higher up your customers work for the organization so the needs your serving are the organization needs.  And I am assuming that the person doesn't have his own self interest in mind, not being angles I know the result often will even be worse.  Mark great statement if government hired and elected angles and cliks didn't develop that promoted a common self interest, "I actually think a bigger government is the only way to deal with these enormous, multinational corporations, to even get bigger, but create efficiencies in how government provides services. A national health service would save money based on every independent study by making record keeping more efficient, and removing the delayed care that makes a small problem at the outset a chronic condition." 
 
Consider how you could answer the same issues with smaller government.  For example corporations, unions, any entity do not have the status of a citizen, lower class then humans.  They are guest in a country and not allowed to contribute to campaigns.  They can not create packs or use dues to fund campaigns or do any lobbying unless the voluntary contributions of members agree.  Thus each human determines who get their contribution, a checking account.  A maximum limit is set and approved by a bill in congress.
 
As Thomas Jefferson suggested all bills shall be submitted for public review and can not be change.  The review period was one year suggested Jefferson.  I think that it should not be reduced to less then half a year.  And that bill must be clean.  On one subject and in plain english less then 25 pages with less then 10 other bills or regulations sited. 
 
All departments budget shall go before congress for a vote individually, a public review period of at least three months shall be provided with public discussion each year. 
 
The employees are criminally and economically responsible for the actions of the company, organization, and government agency.  I have been in this situation for government contracts. It is manageable.
 
The information age has made knowledge distributive.  For example Bit Coin information is distributed with rules to make access and changes.   Banking is distributive.  Medical data could easily be distributive.   The internet in a distributive knowledge system.  Wikipedia is a distributive encyclopedia with rules for submitting and changing the content.  Music on the web is distributive.   
 
  

Recent Articles by Writers mark henry smith follows.