Folks,
This was forwarded to me by Jackie Junti and I found it compelling. Neal has kindly given me permission to reprint it here in full. Enjoy.
Mike
III
Why I Write
Neal Ross
15 December, 2008
When I write something I am, hopefully, doing more than expressing my views on a subject. It is my desire to stimulate people to think about the subject I am writing about.
I do not expect people to always agree with me, or take my word for anything. In fact I would prefer that they do not. Accepting what someone says without verifying the information for yourself is a foolish endeavor at best. On the other hand, it is my sincere desire that people do not disregard what I have to say simply because it differs from what they believe.
My worst fear, and one that I, unfortunately have found to be the case, is that far too many people simply do not care enough to spend a few hours researching the information I discuss. After all, I would hate to be the one who imposes upon peoples time when it concerns something as insignificant as the survival of our republic, or the steady infringements upon your unalienable rights.
If people took the time to think about what I am say they would notice that in most of my articles there is a constant underlying theme that I keep repeating over and over and over. It appears that, more often than not, I am not successful in getting that subliminal point across, so let me try and put it into plain English for you.
In 1789, the Constitution was ratified by the legislatures of the original thirteen states. Prior to the ratification of the Constitution the states were independent sovereigns, so it was no small task to get them to agree to give up some of their sovereignty to a central government.
However, once it was ratified, the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, as stated in Article 6 of that document. It is essential that you understand that the Constitution superseded all other laws, and it was to be the standard by which all other laws were to be measured.
This new form of government was one in which we would choose people to represent us, governing strictly according to the limits the Constitution imposed upon them. Article 6 of the Constitution also states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution..." Simply stated, that means that every single person we elect to represent us is duty bound to govern according to what the Constitution says.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly defines the powers that we the people have granted our government. Nothing they do that steps outside those specific boundaries was to be considered legal, because as previously mentioned the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
In his Notes on Virginia, Q.XIII, 1782, Thomas Jefferson stated, “[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”
In Federalist Paper 15, Alexander Hamilton made the following statement, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience.”
However, if one were to take the time to read the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, which specifies certain rights which, under no circumstances our government was to infringe upon, they would realize that our elected representatives are not supporting the Constitution as they are bound by oath to do.
As Hamilton said, all laws are attended with a sanction, or a penalty or punishment for disobedience. Unfortunately there appears to be no law put into place that would penalize those who violate the supreme law of the land, the Constitution.
Therefore, the question boils down to this, is our Constitution still valid? If it is, then it must be strictly adhered to, as it is still considered the supreme law of the land. We the people must be willing to reject any law passed by our government that is which goes beyond the specifically enumerated powers granted them, particularly when those laws infringe upon our unalienable rights.
On the other hand, if our Constitution is no longer valid, then neither is our government, for where it not for the Constitution our government WOULD NOT EVEN EXIST! Therefore every law this illegitimate government enacts is null and void and we are not legally bound to obey them.
Re-read that if you must, but it is important to let that simple fact to sink in, either we have a Constitution and it is strictly adhered to, or we don't and our government holds no power over us whatsoever.
Yet how many laws has our government enacted that are not to be found among the specific powers granted them by the Constitution? Think about what happens when we do not obey those laws, even though they are unconstitutional?
So, if a government can enact laws that are outside the powers granted it by the people, and if that government can impose penalties upon those who do not obey these laws, what does that sound like to you? To me it sounds like tyranny, and that is what our founders fought a war to escape. Yet we the people have sat back and let it happen because we did not take the time to study, to think for ourselves, and to hold our elected representatives accountable when they did not uphold the Constitution.
We have forgotten that those men and women who sit in our nations capital are our servants, not vice versa. To quote Hamilton one more time, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
It may already be too late to save our nation, but I would hope that each and every one of you who reads this would take a few moments of your precious time to learn what the Constitution says. Either we have a Constitution and it is being trampled upon by those who have sworn an oath to uphold it, or we don’t and those traitors have no power and authority over us whatsoever.
I am Neal Ross, and I approved this message
Comments may be sent to bonsai@syix.com
My New Blog: http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal/
4 comments:
If I was an English Composition teacher, I would have this piece as required reading. Great essay.
Thank you, Mr Ross. It's unfortunate and dangerous that today's legislators seem to have no concept as to the seriousness and binding nature of an oath made before God and man to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Most of them, with certain outstanding exceptions, seem to think a man's word means nothing. They have been lying and have been lied to for so long the truth is an anathema to them.
They cannot recognise truth and will not recognise an honest man.
They no longer see themselves as servants but as rulers of poor ignorant people who cannot admit what is right for themselves and who would be as lost lambs if they were not shepherded by powerful leaders.
Thank you, and me being nothing more than a high school graduate...
Just goes to show that no matter how hard I try, someone else has previously arrived at the same conclusion, and described it with greater skill.
I'm not sure if I should be happy or sad with the fact that so many other people have examined the same problem, and independently come to the same conclusion.
Post a Comment