Would We the People Ratify the Constitution Today?

We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power.

Would We the People Ratify the Constitution Today?

Author
By Dr. Robert R. Owens
 

We the People are the opening words of the preamble to the Constitution.  Many patriots glory in that name, “We the People” holding it aloft as a banner against the encroachments of an ever expanding central government.  In the minds of many it is connected somehow to Lincoln’s famous description of America’s government, “Of the People, by the people and for the people.”

http://constitutionus.com/

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

Both of these were revolutionary terms when first spoken.

The people of the founding generation did not think of themselves as “Americans,” instead they saw themselves as citizens of their respective States.  The thirteen colonies, with the singular exception of North and South Carolina, were each founded as separate entities.  Each had its own history and relationship with the crown.  They banded together for the Revolution during which they established the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  This established a confederation composed of thirteen independent States. 

When the secretly drafted Constitution was finally revealed to the public many of the leading lights of the Revolution were enraged by what they saw as a counter-revolution seeking to supplant the legally constituted Confederation of States in favor of a consolidated central government.  Some of them say the truth was revealed in the first three words, “We the People.” 
Every school child can recite the most famous words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.”  You probably said those words in your head before you read them once you saw his name.  He is synonymous with America’s defiance to tyranny.  While these famous words ring in the heads of all, few know his opinion on the Constitution.

At the Virginia Ratification Convention

in 1788, Patrick Henry said,http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/preambles14.html

  And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.

Ever since the Civil War fatally warped the original federal structure and We the People became a reality the central government of the United States has assumed more and more power until today totalitarianism appears to be within its grasp.

 I am not referring to the crude overt totalitarianism of a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia instead I am referring to a soft totalitarianism, a kind of nanny state smothering of individual freedom, personal liberty and economic opportunity.  After the complete subjugation of the States to the central government by the Lincoln administration combined with the increased mobility of the modern era, we the people actually became the way most people think of themselves.

In America today we have a president who in a 2001 interview expressed his innermost thoughts about the Constitution,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM



If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

That is as clear a statement of the way our Progressive leaders view America’s founding document, a charter of negative liberties.  A charter that they believe needs to be expanded with a second bill of rights first proposed by FDR in his 1944 State of the Union Address,http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/fdrs-second-bill-of-rights

A realistic tax law—which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.
     

A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts—which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war. 

   

A cost of food law—which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.
   
Early reenactment of the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer. We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.
     
A national service law—which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.

According to Cass R. Sunstein, the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, President Obama not only believes in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights he seeks to implement them,http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-28/obama-fdr-and-the-second-bill-of-rights

As the actions of his first term made clear, and as his second inaugural address declared, President Barack Obama is committed to a distinctive vision of American government. It emphasizes the importance of free enterprise, and firmly rejects “equality of result,” but it is simultaneously committed to ensuring both a fair opportunity and decent security for all

.

In these respects, Obama is updating Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights.
http://search1.bloomberg.com/search?q=Franklin%20Delano%20Roosevelt&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=en10_wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja


We are in the grip of the Federalists on steroids bent on redistributing their way to total power.  The question before us today is, “Would we the people ratify the Constitution today?” 

Even Conservatives believe in a safety net.  Everyone contributes to and hopes to receive from Social Security.  No one wants people to die in the streets because they can’t get medical care so Medicaid is available to the uninsured.  Of course Medicare is considered a right for anyone over 65.  Unemployment is an accepted part of the safety net as are food stamps.  If you add up what is already accepted and expected then throw ObamaCare into the mix and you see we have become a society addicted to entitlements all of which would fail the test of a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment says,  “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.”  The power to do any of these entitlements is not delegated anywhere in the document as it is written, only as it is interpreted.http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

So would we the people ratify the Constitution as it is written today?  I think not.  A living document has turned the Constitution into a dead letter and the entitlements we have all accepted have turned the descendants of the Founders, Framers, and Pioneers into supplicants standing before the federal throne waiting for a check.

Only a re-birth of self-reliance, a renaissance of historical perspective and renewed political activity have a chance to bring about a rebirth of liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

American government is based on the perpetual lies told by every person elected to the Office of President, an office of the Articles of Confederation. These lies are based on the premise that the Constitution has repealed and replaced the Articles of Confederation. I deal with that erroneous contention by showing that though there is an attempt to ordain and establish the written Constitution for the “People of the United States” and that same Constitution provides for ratification by the States no “Adoption” of the Constitution ever takes place. Without an “Adoption” of the Constitution by the person elected to the Office of President, the only Officer capable of that act, the Constitution is limited to the function of acting as an amendment to the Articles of Confederation.

Everyone should know that it is the Presidential Electors now called the Electoral College not the voters who elect the person who fills the Office of President. No one knows that the person elected President takes the oath of Office for another Office and never takes the oath of Office of President. A vacant Office of President makes it impossible for there to be a Constitution for the United States of America. Millions of voters cast their ballots for a President of the United States knowing that they aren’t really going to elect a President of the United States. What would happen if they learned the truth? The truth is the person elected President by the Electoral College should take an oath to hold the Office of President and to support the Constitution as it is written.

There for, We are all captives of government, because we have forgotten what truth makes us free. Government truth is qualified as to people, place and purpose. God’s truth is universal. It is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith that obedience to God’s laws will make us free. God makes His laws easily known by writing them on every human heart. The Congress of the United States has become the Tower of Babel of written law.

This is my thoughts,

The Organic Law consists of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution for the United States of America. The educational aid and assistance that I will provide will enable the person in captivity to present their own paper work to be freed. As we progress with the educational program other methods of attacking the incarceration will present themselves. Every means of education will be used to obtain the release of the person held captive as individual economies permit.

We don’t have legal problems we have problems with a government that wants to make rules and regulations for us, as if there was no God. Lawyers cannot help us. Becoming a government citizen will not help us. Innocence will not help us. Pontius Pilate, the embodiment of government, found Jesus Christ innocent, but allowed Him to be crucified in order to support government. Jesus Christ submitted to show us how government will assist those allied with a government to punish and even kill the innocent.

We know Satan the devil controls all governments, because he tempted Jesus Christ with the possession of that authority. Jesus was not tempted, but politicians have succumbed to temptation, as have all the Presidents. Worldwide, governments are in the control of the devil and politicians. Government mimics God’s law in order to obtain obedience to its written law. Jesus taught obedience to the law God wrote on every heart. Strict obedience to government law is required only by those in the government otherwise the conflict of serving two masters arises.

Written laws that demand precise attention to detail confirm that hidden in that law are minute details that exclude huge populations from its application. The popular saying: “The devil is in the details,” explains how every written law is limited to a certain place on Earth where politicians rule in league with the devil. My investigation of written law has uncovered no conflict with God’s laws, which proves that even Satan the devil must play by God’s rules. Written law governs the government and is operable only on territory owned by government. “Render Unto Caesar” means that government rules what belongs to the government. Written law expands its territory by deception, because all written law requires consent. One cannot consent to that which is ambiguous.

Real laws, the laws of nature, are unwritten gifts from God the Creator to make us free. When written laws are used to take God’s freedom from us, we must all be certain that all the written laws are known and that they have been properly applied. Lies are told in words. Lies exists as oral or written creations of mankind. The lower animals do not have the need or ability to lie. Modern governments have always been products of written law and written laws are always wrong, when written law is applied outside of government.

Written laws can only be made from human language and at their best they are only marginally accurate in their prescriptions and descriptions. While God’s laws are the truths that make us free, written laws have become traps that imprison us. For example, unalienable rights are God’s laws and written laws must, as supported by the Declaration of Independence, apply only to a government whose purpose it is to secure those unalienable rights for the people. Complex and intricate bureaucratic government institutions are meant to ensnare those looking for the simple application of God’s unwritten law. Government laws must conform with God’s laws, so as with all written laws loopholes abound in government laws.