About That General Welfare Clause...


The power brokers in Congress and Barrack Obama are hell-bent on convincing the American public that they have the right to enact health care and energy mandates based on the General Welfare reference in the U.S.Constitution. As usual they are abusing their power, misusing the language of the Constitution to suit their own power greed, and twisting words to confuse an uneducated public to become dependent on the federal government in ways the founders never intended. This is tragic and a travesty against the very core of our basic rights.

The General Welfare reference in the U.S. Constitution was meant only to provide support for the individual States to have national defense and provide a basis for the States to be able to conduct their own affairs. In the Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 14, James Madison wrote this:

.. the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added]

In fact, the entire purpose of the U.S. Constitution, with deliberate enumerated powers, is to protect Americans from the exact oppression that the current administration is trying to impose on us. Nowhere in the Constitution does the President or the Congress have any of the powers they have usurped with regard to mandates over-riding the jurisdiction of the States.

So what recourse actions do the citizens have when the federal government becomes Jabba the Hut? At this point I'm not sure if there is recourse. Liberals/Communists/Socialists/Progressives have infiltrated most of the education system and indoctrinated three or more generations of students into the "dependent on government" mindset. Fifty-six members of Congress are proud card-carrying members of the Socialist Party. Both Republicans and Democrats have abandoned the U.S. Constitution for the sake of buying votes and padding their own bank accounts. The corruption is massive. The Constitution has been subverted for decades and the population is now at the mercy of treasonous politicians, whose agenda is not supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution, but solidifying their own money machines and power bases.

Elections come and go. The one true thing you can say is that elections have consequences. Americans need to get smart really fast and figure out how to survive the consequences of tyranny. While we have incrementally been losing freedoms for a very long time, the current administration is wrapping us up in chains and promising to never allow us to be free people again. Your health, your energy use, your ability to communicate, your money system, your ability to move about, your opportunity to buy property, all of this is now being taken away from you and placed under the iron thumb of the federal government.

When Obama said he was going to "transform" America, he wasn't kidding. The question that needed to be asked was, "To what?" Now you know. His answer to all things is domination by federal government in all aspects of your life. The irony is that, because of very clever rhetoric, Obama convinced a lot of people that the transformation was going to return America to its original intent. The people who were fed up with government corruption voted for him thinking they were going to get a more transparent and purely American administration. What we got instead was a Chicago style mafia, complete with Communist thugs, taking over every private industry in our country. A very clever ruse indeed. He could get a Nobel Prize for pulling the wool over people's eyes, if there were one.

Your liberty was guaranteed by the Constitution, not your health care or your energy usage. "The people are the natural guardians of the Constitution," according to Alexander Hamilton. It is now up to us to defend it from the power mad in our government. Call congress and exert your natural rights to defend the Constitution by calling them back to it. If we don't stop them, the general welfare for all of us is lost.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • SpiritSplice

    Boy are you confused. Support a tyrannical document that authorizes theft? And pretend that it protects liberty?

    Taking what isn't yours is theft, even when government does it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

  • NeilBJ

    The General Welfare "clause" is merely a statement of purpose for the
    Constitution. I would be reluctant to it a "clause" for that reason.

    If the opening paragraph is interpreted to grant any power to the government,
    then what purpose does a list of enumerated powers serve?

    • SpiritSplice

      A ruse. It isn't an introduction. It is a separate clause

    • NeilBJ

      Clause:

      a distinct article or provision in a contract, treaty, will, or other formal or legal written document. (dictionary.com)

      The Constitution is a document that grants limited and specific powers to the federal govenment. What specific power does the preamble grant to the federal government?

    • SpiritSplice

      A preamble isn't a clause, it is an introduction. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 is not an introduction.

      Not that it matters anyway since people cannot delegate rights and powers they don't possess in the first place. No one has the right to steal money from others, so they can't give this power to "government".

    • NeilBJ

      True. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 is not an introduction. "Provide for ... the general Welfare" is merely a restatement of the purpose of the Constitution and grants no specific power. Those who use that clause to justify doing anything they please are intellectually dishonest, and worse - they are tyrants.

      At first I guess I misunderstood "where you're coming from." I'm still not sure. I am beginning to think that you are a pure libertarian, since many libertarians find much to discredit in the Constitution.

      If stealing is defined as using force or the threat of force to take property belonging to others, then what the government does is stealing. Is it justified stealing? That is one question I am not yet prepared to answer, since any government cannot exist without having the means to exist. It seems to me that there has to be some government to handle those who use aggression contrary to the non-aggression philosophy of libertarianism.

      I do see the apparent contradiction. Create an institution that has to use aggression to support itself to use aggression against those who choose not to abide by the non-aggression principle.

  • Daniel the StoryTeller

    call Congress? well, maybe YOUR Representative there. If you bother doing that, make sure that both parties understand that you are RECORDING TO BE PLACED ON THE INTERNETthe entire conversation...and follow through. I would suggest you calling your Statelevel Representatives also with an 'informational call' quoting exact Article, Section, and paragraph that is being violated by EXACTLY which Congressional or Presidential Action.

  • retiredmillwright

    Our government grows larger and more intrusive every day. It’s
    like a baby alligator kept for a pet, small and easy to feed at first, but now its
    grown fifteen foot long and rules the neighborhood. The productive people of
    America have lost control of our government, and now it is taking our freedoms away from us. Those people who don’t
    consider this a problem are part of the problem. This has happened in other
    countries in the past, like Germany in the nineteen thirties’. People look back
    at that disaster and ask how this could ever have happened. Well it did happen
    because people let it happen, never realizing the direction their country was
    going until it was too late. Today America is well on the path to ruin and a
    large amount of people don’t consider that we have a problem yet, but we do.

    • SpiritSplice

      That is what ALL governments do because that what all governments ARE.

  • http://www.facebook.com/RobertAlexander.Salvage Robert Alexander

    Everyone better have some Jesus infused in your heart and covering your flesh cuz we're gonna need it.

    The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

    • SpiritSplice

      Would this be the god Yahweh who told his people to slaughter children and commit genocide?

  • Greg137

    What recourse do we have? Well secession cerainly comes to mind! Or better, yet WALL OFF WASHINGTON and declare it a FAILED ZONE for the criminally insane!!!!!!

  • jimpeel

    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger
    on that article of the Constitution
    which granted a right to Congress of expending,
    on the objects of benevolence,
    the money of their constituents."

    -- James Madison

    • SpiritSplice

      One opinion, Hamilton disagreed

    • jimpeel

      Hamilton didn't write the Constitution. The author, James Madison, knows what his intent was at the writing and stated it quite sufficiently. I'll take the word of the author over the word of a spectator every time.

    • SpiritSplice

      Doesn't matter who wrote, it matters how the words were used by others. Madison knew full well what others thought those words implied and did not change them to be more specific.

    • jimpeel

      You mean "others" like Thomas Jefferson who wrote: "On
      every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
      ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
      the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
      may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
      probable one in which it was passed."

      Sounds like he would have gone with Madison as well.

    • SpiritSplice

      You seem to be overlooking the fact that those of that interpretation lost and were ignored at nearly every turn. The Constitution itself was illegally written and passed (while Jefferson was away I might add). They were charged with altering the AOC, not drafting a new Constitution.

    • jimpeel

      Yes, but what came out of that convention was far superior to that which went in. HOWEVER ...

      We are at this moment in time at the crossroads of another Constitutional Convention or Con-Con. That would be disastrous because, once called, the Con-Con will fill up with every group of every stripe demanding their agendas be woven into the Supreme Law of the Land. That is what a Con-Con does. It allows the re-writing or amendment of the existing constitution; and re-write it they shall.

      There will be rights coming out of it that will boggle the imagination. The New Constitution -- or whatever they choose to call it -- will be not a simple one page document but reams of tersely worded manifestos of extremes that the Founders could not have imagined in their farthest and wildest dreams. The simplicity of the old Constitution would be supplanted with complexities that would defy the interpretation of the most learned scholar.

      That could, and possibly will, be our future; and that leaves no future at all.

    • SpiritSplice

      Not sure how you can possibly say such a thing considering that what came out of it led to the largest, most intrusive, Imperialist Regime the world has ever seen.

      It really doesn't matter what the new Con would say any more than it mattered what the Soviet Con said or the US Con said. As long as the people hallucinate the legitimacy of authority, the Controllers will do whatever they wish, regardless of what a piece of paper says.

      It's funny to read you here, because you seem to think that we don't right now have what you fear will happen if it is rewritten. What do you think the FDA, IRS, UCC, EPA, DHS, etc etc etc etc etc etc codes are? What you fear has been already been our reality for half a century.

      And make no mistake, this is what the concept of government produces. It cannot produce freedom or protection of rights or any other sort of Randian minarchist fantasy. The moment you admit that someone has the right to control you, you not have an owner and have lost everything. No one has the right to rule another. You cannot delegate rights you do not have. Not as an individual, not as a group of 300 million.

      I suggest you pick up a Copy of Larken Rose's book, The Most Dangerous Superstition. If you truly want freedom, you need to come to terms with the fact that "government" is not the answer and will always lead to tyranny.

    • jimpeel

      "Not sure how you can possibly say such a thing considering that what
      came out of it led to the largest, most intrusive, Imperialist Regime
      the world has ever seen."

      You mean Great Britain? Remember, until the 1990's the sun never set on the British Empire. The United States has never been able to make that claim. If it weren't for the United States most, or all, of Europe would, this day, be speaking German.

      "If you truly want freedom, you need to come to terms with the fact that
      "government" is not the answer and will always lead to tyranny."

      I already believe that. What have I said in any of my posting that makes you think that I believe that government is the answer. Government is the problem. Congress is the opposite of progress.

      "It cannot produce freedom or protection of rights or any other sort of Randian minarchist fantasy."

      Government produces NOTHING. It can only prevent production and destroy all that it touches. The government governs at the consent of the governed. I see that consent eroding every day.

      As for the acronym laden entities you named, yes, it would only grow worse because those who would call a Con-Con in pursuit of freedom would soon fall prey to those groups who would insist in participating which would deny freedom. "Everyone should have a seat at the table" they would cry while inevitably planning to hew the table into kindling.

    • SpiritSplice

      Your posts seem (to me) to be in favor of the Constitution.

    • jimpeel

      I am -- all of it -- not just the parts I like or with which I agree.

      A Con-Con would endanger our nation as nothing before.

    • SpiritSplice

      Hardly, there is not much left to lose and we will lose it either way.

      Being in favor of the Con is to support slavery and theft, which you earlier said, you were not in favor of, which is it?

    • jimpeel

      I am still wondering if you are yanking my chain, you don't read my posts at all, or you fail to read for comprehension.

      I stated quite clearly "A Con-Con would endanger our nation as nothing before."

      If you are stating that the current Constitution is a document of slavery and theft then you do not know the Constitution. It has been amended to remove those shortcomings yet some people will never accept that. The current Constitution, as written and amended, abolished slavery long ago. If you believe that taxation is theft, you are correct; but you should call it what it is -- theft under color of authority.

      Speaking of which if you read the thirteenth amendment, which abolished slavery, there was this second paragraph added which stated: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

      This was the first time that the congress granted themselves power that was not enumerated in the Constitution. These are extra-constitutional powers that they took it upon themselves to grant autonomously. The States should have demanded that the second paragraph be deleted if there was to be ratification. Apparently, they did not see any danger in this at the time. That danger has only increased over time to give us what we now have.

    • SpiritSplice

      You think a document that authorizes theft, robbery and suppression of rebellion is not tyranny and slavery? lol I don't think you have actually read it. What do you think taxation is? It isn't charity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

      Theft under hallucination of authority is still slavery. If taking all someone's productivity is slavery, at what point does it stop being slavery? You either own yourself and your stuff or someone else does. If it isn't you, then you are a slave. Claiming slavery was abolished is rhetoric.

      Didn't see any danger or directly desired the outcome we now see? Naive.

    • SpiritSplice

      I wanted to address something else you said, that "The government governs at the consent of the governed."

      This is completely false. If one has consent, they are not being governed, they are cooperating and *choosing* to act in a specific way. This is not at all what a government is. Governments do not have or ask for consent. They are force.

      Secondly, it is impossible to obtained consent from the governed in the same way that is is impossible to gain consent from your slave. If they have a choice, they aren't being governed and aren't a slave.

      You cannot delegate right you do not have so there is no possible way for "government" to gain the right to control others. I don't have the right to control you and this doesn't change because 100 million of my friends get together. If we all agree on a rule set or way of living, then it isn't government.

    • jimpeel

      The Founders would disagree. Note the following from the Declaration of Independence:

      "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

      The full text of the first two paragraphs read as follows:

      "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
      people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
      another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
      equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
      them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
      should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
      equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
      Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
      Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
      among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
      --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
      ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
      institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
      organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
      effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
      Governments long established should not be changed for light and
      transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that
      mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
      right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
      But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
      same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
      it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
      to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the
      patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity
      which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
      history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
      injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment
      of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be
      submitted to a candid world.""

    • SpiritSplice

      First, that the founders said it or thought it doesn't make it so.
      You cannot delegate rights you don't have. There is way to get the power to tax since no person has the right to tax, which is nothing more than robbery. Taxes aren't charity.

      Where they (and you) should have stopped was after this part:

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
      that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
      that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

      This was right on the mark, to hallucinate that government would or could protect these things is simply absurd. This is like expecting a tiger to pull a plow.

      As I said before, if I consent, I am not governed, I am cooperating with you. Government is a monopoly on force and monopolies are the opposite of cooperation.

      Secondly, to pretend that the government had the consent of even 10% of the people is laughable. Most people had no say and were not asked. So they absolutely did not have consent, not from the people of the colonies or the Indians they stole their land from.

    • jimpeel

      Then you p[refer anarchy to government?

    • SpiritSplice

      Translation:

      "So you prefer freedom to slavery?"

      Yes.
      NO ONE has the right to rule nor can they ever attain such.

    • jimpeel

      Are you aware of the consequences of anarchy? Hint: It ain't freedom.

      Under anarchy the strongest, who are equipped with the best weaponry, make the rules. Those rules change at their whim -- no vote, no codification, no constitution, no rights.

    • SpiritSplice

      You just described the state, not anarchy.

    • jimpeel

      Watch what you wish for.

      Anarchy is roving gangs of outlaws (we are all outlaws at that point as there is no law except the law of the jungle) ravaging, pillaging, raping, murdering, and stealing at will. Crime would be rampant and only equal force applied by other roving or stationary gangs would suffice to quell them. Even the good would be the bad in that realm.

      Once the warring factions reach equilibrium, you would end up back in feudal times where a Lord would take you under his wing at your willing bequest to protect you from the other clans, bands, tribes, whatever you would call them. The sheeple would gather 'round their masters and kiss the ring as the country fell into despotism under his private army.

      There would be wars between the clans, bands, tribes, whatever as the Lords vied for position, power, and property.

      Sounds just like paradise, or Utopia, doesn't it?

      While this "quote" has been wrongly attributed to Lord Woodhouslee, and its true source is unknown, it is as true today as it was when whoever penned it set it to paper. We are currently at apathetic dependency.

      "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury.

      From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates
      promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by
      dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has
      been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following
      sequence:

      From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
      From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
      From Courage to Liberty
      From Liberty to Abundance
      From Abundance to Selfishness
      From Selfishness to Complacency
      From Complacency to Apathy
      From Apathy to Dependency
      From Dependency back into Bondage"

      --- most commonly attributed to

      "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"

      by Alexander Fraser Tytler Lord Woodhouselee (1748-1813)

      (Scottish judge and historian at Edinburgh University)

    • SpiritSplice

      No it isn't. That is governments. Anarchy is based on non aggression. No rulers, means no ownership claims on other people. To attack someone is to claim ownership over them. If you don't recognize the Feudalism all around you now, you aren't paying attention.

      The cycle you cite continues because of the belief in "authority". Without this, the rest will stop. Most of the evil in the world is committed by those doing the bidding of authority, not by the few evil people there are.

    • jimpeel

      Anarchy is the total absence of law. You have this notion that human nature would change if there were no government. How do you think we got governments -- from Ancient Greece to modern America -- without the desire of the populace demanding one? It is the scenarios I outlined which created that desire. Without moral law there is only the law of the jungle. The strong rule over the weak. They make war on the pacifists because they can. The pacifists allow them to do so.

      Perhaps if you were to create a nation of automatons from a lobotomized populace you could have your perfect world. Human nature will never let anarchy become the way of the world. The seven deadly sins will rear their ugly heads and chaos would result.

      Perhaps you need to change your handle to Pollyanna. She had the same beliefs in human nature; and man was she ever wrong.

    • SpiritSplice

      Yes, absence of LAW, in other words absence of arbitrary decrees by politicians. People don't need legislation to know how to act, to know what right and wrong are.

      Your argument is essentially that "we need government because humans are evil, so we need humans (who are evil) to police them". Brilliant.

      To quote Robert Lefevre,

      "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

      Claiming that human nature is bad, is an argument AGAINST having government, not in favor of it.

      You say, "Without moral law there is only the law of the jungle."

      EXACTLY! This is why government does not and cannot accomplish the fantasy you hope it too (and ironically already admitted it does not do), because government itself is immoral and no paper barrier is going to make people behave morally. Government is an explicit acting out of "might is right" and completely disregards what is moral.

      I also do not support pacifism.

      You don't seem to recognize that anarchy is all around you, in most of your daily interactions.

      BTW, Pollyanna isn't a real person.

    • jimpeel

      I am quite aware that Pollyanna was not a real person. Neither were the characters in "Animal Farm." You should read it some time. It gives great insight to your fanciful future world.

  • Noaʻs Ark

    The US Congress applied the General Welfare as one of many justificationʻs for crafting native Hawaiian entitlements here in the Hawaiian Islands. This coupled with the idea that Congress, having some urgent necessity to "pluck" Hawaii, can now apply so called plenary powers (unilateralism) as a way to maintain sovereignty over the Island State. To this I say "Cursed is he who removes his neighbors land mark and all the people say amen." The curse comes in the form of broken boarders, multiculturalism (illegal foreign immigrants thwarting elections), ungodly taxation, government health care and so on. American Anti-expansionist and anti-imperialist decried this as a departure from Americaʻs core values, warned Congress not to proceed, similar to how Samuel warned Israel about what would result from them wanting a "King to rule over them." Taking Hawaii without Constitutional authority, according to many Americans, was tantamount to wholesale abdication!! Despite these warnings Congress pressed on anyway. The rest is history.

  • Guest

    "Your liberty was guaranteed by the Constitution...."

    • SpiritSplice

      Paper doesn't gaurantee anything. In fact, the Constitution authorizes all sorts of tyranny like theft of land, robbery, suppressing revolution, etc.

  • Brenda

    ("promote the general Welfare") The key is promote the general welfare, not to provide the general welfare.

  • har82

    Ahhh yes, crooked , and corrupted politicians are so well adept ,, at twisting words around. Remember slick willie ??.

  • Ed

    Constitutional Convention!

  • agbjr

    "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children,
    establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

    James Madison

    • http://theawakenednation.ning.com/profile/KevinMKeener Snowman8wa

      Federalist #41 begins with:

      "...THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two
      general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which
      it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The
      SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of
      this power among its several branches.

      Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1.
      Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be
      unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the
      portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

      Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have
      been vested in it? This is the FIRST question.

      It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments
      employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of
      them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of
      attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the
      inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages;
      and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of
      which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot
      impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety
      of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it
      may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of
      the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the
      purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice
      must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the
      PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the
      public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They
      will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point
      first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as
      the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as
      possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

      That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to
      review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that
      this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different
      classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against
      foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3.
      Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain
      miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from
      certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these
      powers...."

      The following papers 42-51 are detailed explanations of the six subjects above. Everyone who doesn't have them should have a link to our Founding Documents INCLUDING the Federalist Papers.

      A source I have in my favorites is: http://www.foundingfathers.info
      Our Founding Fathers are surely scratching their heads, saying How did they get that from this????????? Imbeciles!!!!!!

      Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

  • Melglid

    Cheryl you lost me when you said to call Congress. What makes you think that a phone call will do a THING? Where we need to exert our power is through our states! We need to repeal the 17TH amendment , which should take some power out of the hands of our factions known as political party's. Both party's have way too much power and have chipped away at our Constitution for 90 years. Our Senators are to represent the state or Commonwealth from which the state legislature appoints. When they go to vote, it should be in the interest of the citizens of the state and not a party. Next, we desperately need to limit the time spent in D.C. We need to have our Congressmen spend most of their time within their representative state/commonwealth. Our States need to call out every person who is not upholding the limited enumerated powers of the Federal government. Entitlements by the Federal government needs to end and allow the states to decide whether they want them, can afford them, or fund them. This is withing the boundaries of the Constitution. Also, any Federal agency that is not under the purview of the enumerated powers should be shut down and again, returned to the states. For example, if Maryland wants medicare, or medicaid...Maryland may vote to have that program. If Arizona wants an EPA, then they can have one! For those who were promised SS and framed their whole lives around this, they should have it. We can correct the mistakes made under FDR, Wilson, and LBJ. We need to gradually wean us off of this Government (Fed.) entitlement mentality. The Constitution is the law of the land and everyone who takes that oath to protect it should be tested on the documents and basis for the enumerated powers. Too many have sworn to uphold and then SCOFF at our Constitution and our will. They need to be held accountable if they do not abide by their oath!