The "justification" of policies and platforms by the loyalists of parties has taken on some rather curious questions and arguments in recent years.
A Viet Nam Veteran stated that as Veterans we have a continued responsibility to "follow" the dictates of the President, though he simultaneously suggested his displeasure with the previous office holder. When I looked at his wider sentiments, it was clear he was a die-hard loyalist of the DNC. The Founding Fathers did not trust those who wanted to run Nations, and made sure that Americans were not obligated to swear fealty to a ruler, but rather maintained the Rights of Citizens.
This sentiment strikes to the heart of the matter of what is wrong with the widespread view of the government today. Today's discussions of the presidency is more akin to that of rulers than Constitutional construction. Article II of the US Constitution establishes the office of President, as the person entrusted with running the day to day business of the government, not as a ruler of the Citizens of the Nation. He is to preside over government, not dictate to the Citizenry. It authorizes him to do only those things authorized by the Constitution, and the Congress, which is also limited by the Constitution.
Another person asked me if I "loved my country?" Out of context, the answer is easy, but the context was why I was unyielding to the decree of the politician in office declaring that Military Retirees should pay the Treasury for their Retirement, and why I opposed his efforts to overstep the limitations of the Constitution. It forced me to consider her definition of "country." It seemed the definition was the government, the people who reside within the borders, or the economic successes created within it. The implication of the question was that I should bow to the usurpation of the Constitution, because a past Congress and a current President had deemed it in their best interests.
It is written in plain English, so you don't need to take my word for what it says, what it authorizes, or what it means. You can read it for yourself. It is your responsibility to do so, as a Citizen. And there is a difference between Citizenship, which the Constitution establishes for Americans, and Subjects, as ruled by Kings, Ayatollahs, Emperors, & Dictators.
The Constitution establishes the system of the Federal Government. It defines the processes by which the government can make laws, as well as tax the Citizens to do those few things it authorizes the government to do. It defines the boundaries of the State and Federal governments. It makes a point that the government derives its authority only from the Citizenry, not from the Pope, the UN, NATO, or any other outside agency. It limits the Federal Government, severely, and specifically states that those things it does not authorize the Federal Government, are forbidden to it. Those things outside the realm of the Federal Government are specifically reserved to the States or the People.
So, where are those boundaries? Broadly speaking, if it doesn't cross state lines, the Federal Government has no authority, and then primarily only the authority to establish regulations on the interstate commerce in a manner that demonstrates impartiality. Specifically, Congress can't establish laws that favor the Ports of New York & Los Angeles over the Ports of New Orleans & Norfolk. This was, in fact, one of the primary motivations of the Civil War, as Congress had been doing precisely that. (The "Emancipation Proclamation" came more than a year after Secession & the initiation of the Civil War. And the Civil War, itself, began before Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.)
The Constitution gives authority over domestic issues to the State Governments. Contract law, including corporations and marriage; criminal law, including murder and speeding; and education, including primary and secondary are under the authority of state governments.
The primary arena of the Federal Government is Foreign Policy. The Founding Fathers made clear that they considered this necessary for the survival of the States. They made clear that they understood that government should remain as close to the Citizenry as possible. They authored the Constitution in such a way to achieve that. But they also understood that the People and the States needed to act together, with a concerted voice, in dealing with Foreign Powers, both Diplomatically & Militarily.
It would be fairly easy for Canada to take over Maine or Mexico to forcibly take over Arizona, if they were alone in defense of their Sovereignty. It would be a position of weakness for Michigan or Massachusetts, alone, to negotiate treaties with France or China. The States would be forced to compete against each other in a cutthroat environment with their neighbors.
Often, we hear complaints about a "do-nothing Congress," but the Founding Fathers did not see a need for Congress to be in Washington on a regular basis. Congress' job was to establish the left and right limits of the Federal Government, to authorize funding levels, to approve the Cabinet, Ambassadors, and Treaties, and GO HOME to live and earn a living amongst those that chose them. The Founding Fathers foresaw so little need for Congressmen to live in Washington that they required them to meet at least once a year (Article 1, Section 4). The reasons for a lack of need for Congress to be in session was simple; within the purview of the authority of the Constitution, there was little to be done at the Federal level.
The States, a name chosen because it is synonymous with "Nations," and often found with the adjective Sovereign, were to be the primary source of domestic governance. The Constitution forbids them from entering into treaties, alliances, or wars, i.e. Foreign Policy, on their own accord. The Constitution recognizes the primary role of governance being the State. Your state government is closer to you, and forced to be more responsive to you, than is the Federal Government. Whether you are one of 6 Million residents of your state, or one of 33 Million, there are fewer voters selecting your Governor than the President. Your State Legislator lives closer to your residence than your Congressman's Washington DC apartment/house. Your vote matters a lot more to your local politician than it does to those in Washington.
Too many Americans pay too little attention to their local governments and local politicians, but the Founders intended for those closest to you and most responsive to you, to have the most impact on the government you choose. If your local mayor tells the police to give $100 tickets for 1 MPH over the speed limit, you can help get him voted out of office a lot easier than if the President convinces Congress to raise your taxes by $100/week on your paycheck.
The United States are fairly unique in that we don't have a National (uniformed) Police force and that the Federal Military is forbidden from conducting Law Enforcement activities within our borders, except in cases of Martial Law. Though Federal Law Enforcement Agencies have grown considerably in the last 100 years, such developments were intended to be avoided. This is symptomatic of the Founder's intent of strong State Governments maintaining domestic law, and the progressive power grabbing of the federal politicians.
The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, not because the Founders wanted to weaken the State governments, but because they recognized the need for the Federal to have the teeth and muscle to act within its limited authority. It took a decade for the Founders to agree to replace the original, but they maintained a considerable amount of the original concepts, and the Articles are certainly worth reading, comparing, and contrasting to that which replaced it. The decade of 1778 to 1788 seems to be the forgotten or lost decade of American History. Few know of the Presidents that preceded George Washington.
And the Founders recognized the lure of increasing power by those in power. They had put their lives and fortunes on the line fighting a distant Ruler that found no limit to his own dictates. Above all, they wished to prevent, or at least delay, the capability of politicians to become ruling elites. Almost immediately they authored (6 months) and ratified (15 months) the Bill of Rights, further restricting Federal government and guaranteeing the God Given (as per the Declaration of Independence) Rights of the Individual Citizen from the limited government the People authorized.
So, if the Founders never intended for the Federal Government to be ruling the lives of Our Citizens, or interfering in domestic governance, how have we come to a point in history where politicians believe they have the right to fine you, the individual, if you don't buy a product they want you to buy? It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't done without a concerted effort by those that the people elected, and those the politicians appointed. It was a progressive effort that ignores basic human behavior and distorts small phrases actually found in the US Constitution. It relies on individuals not knowing or understanding the Constitution and basis for what the Founders wrote. It relies on people voting for letters behind a name, or specious slogans, rather than paying attention to what their politicians are actually doing. And it relies on "Constitutional Lawyers" who focus on how to undermine and distort rather than protect the Constitution.
As did religious leaders of the Dark Ages, so too do politicians today pretend that only they can understand the sacred writings. Politicians today attempt to write in a manner incomprehensible to the Citizenry, but the Constitution was written in plain English.
Stumble It!
