These conversations got me philosophical about the , and the resolute of our who painstakingly composed it in 1787. They built the Constitution and our state on principles of free-enterprise and fixed guidance especially reduced federal power. They wanted to assure leave and the fruits of one’s labor to the particular citizen.
The words of these men retire no incredulity of their tendency for time to come generations regarding the Constitution, and their words demand wisdom and warning for those that would come after them. "Do not segregate text from authentic background. If you do, you will have malicious and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized texture of illegitimate government." - James Madison.
"The Constitution is not an agency for the authority to restrain the people; it is an instrumentality for the people to restrain the control - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry. "A smarty and careful government, which shall imprison men from injuring one another, which shall freedom them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of perseverance and improvement, and shall not carry off from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the whole of good government." - Thomas Jefferson.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is puzzled forever." - John Adams. The US Constitution is the shortest and oldest still in use by any polity in the set today. The handwritten native instrument penned by is on advertise at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. The US Constitution has been worn as a design for their own Constitution by over 100 countries around the world.
It is one of the most deliver and influencial documents ever written - if not the most prestigious and honored. Our courts and citizens consideration its interpretation, yet it survives as one of the most conscious and revered statutory documents in existence. No one questions or minimizes the scholarship and eloquence of its underlying set and principles. It stands as the beginning of what would become the most affluent provinces in the fraternity and a fire for release worldwide.
Even with the problems in the US today, the US remains the motherland most chosen by immigrants insufficient the "American Dream" of play and luxury for themselves and their family. The US Constitution was written to spawn a federal ministry to oblige the states by delegating limited and enumerated powers at a federal unified level. The US Constitution is meant to set the rules for and to manipulate the federal regime in its utilization to the states. At times it seems Congress and the White House have willfully disregarded this or maybe don't gather this intended nature now.
It is mandatory to our singular exemption to hold our government to the intent that the founders considered "rights" to be "what you were born with" and not "given" to one by the domination or even the Constitution. The laws set forth in the Constitution were to make safe care of our expected rights. It seems at times Congress needs to be reminded there is no federal command without the US Constitution.
And with this "service to the states" granted to the federal sway by the US Constitution, the states and the tribe have all rights not specifically delegated to the federal superintendence by the Constition. Without this intended and written predetermined federal dominance structure, the US Constitution would never have been ratified by the source states; and there would not have been a "United States" of America. And, did you have knowledge of Article 6 of the requires that all federal and style legislators, officers, and or affirmations to underpinning the Constitution? Looking at what many Americans dig as the just out overreaching legislation such as the Patriot Act under President Bush and the Healthcare Reform under President Obama, it is unhidden the curse to "support and safeguard the Constitution" seems to be misunderstood by those in direction at best, and "just words" to politicians at worst. When you tot bailing out shortcoming companies and nationalizing companies, even if complex to tolerate for some, we all advised of our Founding Fathers would in fait accompli be turning over in their graves at what most Americans get the idea as a pretermission for the authentic powers given in the Constitution and most citizens do not support. Americans are communist to stare why those in Washington would search a position that requires they take an dirty word to support the Constitution and then exert there is no framework for Constitutional legislation or their own potency to mechanism the states and the people.
Why would they come out for legislation they have not read or debris to support and enforce laws plainly because they don't find them politically profitable to re-election efforts? Why would they take effect as if those citizens and states questioning this behavior are the ones with the problem? It only takes one gaze at the YouTube video cheat of Representative talking about Congress and rules to envision how convoluted upholding the Constitution can be even after an expression to do so was taken. I went looking for a senate candidate, from either governmental party, who seemed to concentrate the imprecation they would regard as a Senator to "support and defend the US Constitution." Considering the trade disaster in America, someone whom understood economics wouldn't pang either. Joe Miller, a challenger for the US Senate settee for Alaska, seemed to befit this tab perfectly.
He currently lives in Fairbanks where he practices law. Rarely do I or anyone acquiesce with any MP on their unqualified platform, yet I do reconcile with Joe Miller's stand on restoring our founding principles, small constitutional government, and reversing supervision growth. Whether you coincide with someone or not politically, one of our strongest governing principles is the nobility of candour of expression guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.
Our Founding Fathers covenanted there would be sexual debate and differing opinions and able for this to be without censorship or reprisal. Joe Miller is an Alaskan by choice. He grew up in a working prestige ancestors in Kansas. He headed to the Last Frontier sixteen years ago because of his sympathy for the outdoors.
After graduating from corpus juris school, he accepted a put at a pre-eminent constitution firm in Anchorage. He hurriedly mastered the by-law and three years later, at the length of existence of 30, he was appointed as a State Magistrate, the youngest then serving in Alaska, as well as a Superior Court Master for the Fourth Judicial District. Further honors followed four years later when Joe Miller was appointed an Acting State District Court Judge and, testily thereafter, U.S. Magistrate Judge in Fairbanks.
He again had the division of being the youngest then serving in that federal position, not only in the state, but also in the express US. He was also the only appreciate in the US, at that time, serving at both the federal and express levels simultaneously. In 2004, Joe Miller stepped down from the bench to creek for State Representative. He overwhelmingly won the contested Republican primitive and nearly pulled off an ruffle in the community plebiscite receiving over 48% of the franchise against the Democratic required in a traditionally Democratic district.
This was the closest re-election run the officeholder has ever faced. He returned to the prosperous complete term career of code at his own firm. He has represented clients in a comprehensive miscellany of cases, a count of which have gone all the feeling to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Prior to suitable an attorney and a judge, Joe Miller served as an gendarme in the US Army. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his direction in vendetta during the First Gulf War. He received his commission from West Point, where he graduated with honors. He is also a gradate of Yale Law School and holds a master's standing in economics from the University of Alaska.
An Interview with Joe Miller, Challenger for US Senate Seat for Alaska: BKH: What made you take to circuit for the US Senate especially against a telling incumbent? JM: I'm a uneasy citizen, concrete working taxpayer, father, and staunch manage who believes that our sticks is at a crossroads. Are we affluent to subsidize certitude with the Founders and fight for our Constitutional Republic? Or will we persist our headlong pitch into socialism and more regulation control? We already recognize what is at the end of that road: the taper off of the dollar, further constriction of our economy, continual pongy unemployment, crippling rule regulations, and a deeper dependency on belligerent unassimilable powers. I'm sustained to amble that around, to stand up for individual freedoms, and to remain in effect up for Alaska. BKH: Why do suppose you can win your primary brave to Lisa Murkowski? What sets you most individually from her for voters? JM: Murkowski has bygone touch with the Alaskan voters on pivotal issues, especially in the area of management growth and spending.
This is a minuscule state where conservative activism and volunteerism discover elections. I've received more endorsements from sitting and former legislators than Sarah Palin did when she defeated Frank Murkowski for Governor. A add of bygone borough mayors have also endorsed me. Former Governor Palin gave my race a resounding endorsement.
She shares the idea that our realm is at a momentous juncture. It is schedule for straightforwardly change away from the long discredited image that Big Government knows best and back near our Constitutional moorings rooted in peculiar freedom and personal responsibility. Murkowski and I different most markedly on the following issues: ObamaCare: I want to invalidate it and ask for true cost saving reform. Murkowski wants to occupation within the framework of the existing 2000+ call for healthcare law. Pro-Life: I am unequivocally Pro-Life.
Murkowski is not and has voted multiple times to finances taxpayer funded abortions and embryonic pedicel room research. She endorses Roe vs. Wade as constitutionally sound. Illegal Immigration: I counter-attack amnesty. Murkowski has voted for it. She has also refused to cache the fence.
She has voted against photo ID requirements to mitigate electing fraud. Cap and Trade: I combat this responsibility windfall legislation. Murkowski believes in manmade worldwide warming and is untie to some deportment of Cap and Trade.
In fact, she has stated that she would merchandise the send-off of ANWR for Cap and Trade legislation. Hate Crimes: I assume be averse to offence laws that abbreviate the frankness of speech and unfold unequal protection under the law are not only misguided, they are dangerous. Murkowski voted for Obama's have an aversion to crimes legislation this year and has supported such legislation in the past. BKH: What do you contemplate the number of Alaskans and Americans disquiet about most today? JM: The land of the economy, federal security, and the instruction of the federal oversight are most important. BKH: Why is Washington missing the measure in your opinion? JM: Washington has forgotten the lessons of the 80s and 90s: that less, not more government, is better.
When the command takes from one person's racking effect to give to another who has not worked for it, there is an overall antipathetic intention on the economy. There is less readies left in the hands of individuals and businesses to sink and grow and conceive jobs. Conversely, when the government starts copiousness redistribution programs, whose benefits folk do not have to pay for or pay chuck-full value for, it invariably leads to more kinsmen flocking to them and becoming more dependent on government. The administration then has to pivot around and raise taxes again leading to fewer jobs and more kinfolk dependent on government. The descending spiral continues.
Where does this all lead? Margaret Thatcher said it best, "The unmanageable with socialism [big government] is that after all you trip out of other people's money." BKH: You have a Master's Degree in Economics. What do you deem of the commercial policies coming out of Washington the after 10 years? JM: In summing-up to what I have said before, I would also note that such policies have created a due anxiety that is spectacular the competiveness of the American thrift and the power of our nation to pursue its public interests. We are on the road to serfdom.
BKH: What is top-priority to make up for the federal budget and bring down the nationwide deficit? JM: Again, the 80s and 90s are instructive. We cannot gain taxes enough to command our budget, strikingly in our global economy, because we must remain competitive. The why we had balanced budgets in the belated 90s was primarily because our briefness was growing and innovating. We attracted the world's top-hole and some of its best talent.
But also, we restrained the nurturing of federal spending. Under the Republican Congress, federal spending, including that for entitlements, grew at its slowest speed since World War II. BKH: Former President George W. Bush increased federal spending, in deficit, to recognize the Iraq combat with and also fundamentally increased entitlement spending with the Medicare formula plan. Federal spending including entitlements increased to the largest default known in the US quondam to President Obama's shortage spending now.
JM: President Bush increased federal help spending 36% from 2001 to 2006, which included, as you mentioned, the direction benumb benefit. With the land at struggle and already constant a deficit, this decisiveness was fiscally indefensible. Lisa Murkowski voted for that rejuvenated benefit. She also voted to boost Schip - the children's vigorousness cover plot to subsume children from mesial year families. President Bush vetoed this addition twice.
One of President Obama’s original acts was to cipher an expansion of Schip check into law - funding for the program increased by $35 billion. Lisa Murkowski joined five other Republican Senators in voting for this bill. In defense of President Bush and the Republican Congress, they did incite a pro-growth monetary feel by lowering proceeds and means gains taxes. The brevity grew, federal revenues hit itemize levels, and the deficiency shrank from its heights of just over $400 billion to $162 billion by monetary 2007.
If the Republicans had controlled spending, we could have had some budget surpluses. The mortgage meltdown followed in 2008, and the loss went up again to $455 billion that year. The Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and then federal shortfall spending in the final analysis took off.
They tried to capitalize on the intuition of calamity in the nation by in fact growing government and adding the largest novel entitlement program since the Great Society. For this year, we can await a deficit of at least $1.6 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal deficit for the next ten years will be at or near $1 trillion per year, if we head-stay on this path. That is unsustainable. BKH: You have a judgelike curriculum vitae and are a constricting constitutionalist.
Do you dream those in Washington are upholding their four-letter word to abide and shield the US Constitution? JM: Many are not. There are a few homogeneous constitutionalists have a weakness for Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, but most seem to bribe into this twisted fancy of a "living Constitution." Words, whether in the laws or our Constitution, must ignoble something. But our Representatives and Senators, along with the complicit courts, mold the Constitution into whatever develop fits their purpose. Usually, Congress justifies its most egregious force grabs by misconstruing the Commerce Clause.
The authentic resoluteness of the Commerce Clause was to guard the complimentary go of goods and services between states. But Congress just misused this clause to also pressurize every Tom to acquisition haleness guarantee and deliver higher taxes, in a press to check our healthcare system. This is an unconstitutional might grab.
The Commerce Clause has also been occupied to validate enactment of federal gun dominance laws. Yet the only constitutional purvey relating to guns is the Second Amendment, protecting the individual's starboard to respect and exhibit arms. If the proposed Cap and Trade conclusion passes, the justification will again be the Commerce Clause. What gives the federal government the arbiter to require American manufacturers to swallow carbon credits in directive to supervision their business? The federal government has no such enumerated power, whether carbon is ever proven to cause wide-ranging warming or not.
Powers not enumerated in the Constitution are unemotional to the states. BKH: Specifically, do you allow the modern Arizona forbidden immigration legislation is constitutional? Do you fantasize it will cope with a court challenge? JM: The borders must be secured. If the federal government refuses to act, the states have the obligation and constitutional authorization to cover their citizens. BKH: Do you credence in the healthcare ameliorate legislation just passed is constitutional? Do you suppose it will stick a court challenge? JM: The inexperienced healthcare is not constitutional.
Hopefully, it will be struck down both on 10th Amendment grounds and as an malediction of the Commerce Clause. In effect, the 2000+ call regulation forces individuals to purchasing healthcare assurance or face fines or imprisonment. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring citizens to grip a yield from a private object that they do not want. Under the 10th Amendment, those rights not granted under the Constitution to the federal government are icy to the kinsfolk and the states. A alike line of theory holds regarding the Commerce Clause.
This clause has never been expanded to cogency citizens to accept a product from sequestered entity. Given the current membership of the Supreme Court, I have excessive hopes that ObamaCare will be struck down. BKH: Do you hold Cap & Trade is constitutional? Do you think about it will pass? If passed, do you characterize it will resist a court challenge? JM: No, as I popular before, I do not regard it is constitutional.
It likely will not surmount the Senate since we’ve entered the referendum season. BKH: Do you find credible Former President Clinton present a non-paid Board bent to Congressman Sestak to not participate in the Pennsylvania Senate fly against official Senator Arlen Specter violates any rules in the constitution? JM: I don’t have all the facts on this yet, so would rather stick around to commentary on this potentially delicate issue. BKH: What do you maintain are the most misunderstood or misinterpreted US Constitutional elements by Congress and the White House if any? JM: The Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment, and the unimpaired thought of inventive intent.
BKH: Is federal, state, or regional turn-down to twist any common rules and regulations defendable? Is it constitutionally sound? JM: We are a state of laws. Of performance there are limited scenarios where the goodness isn't necessarily the legal. For example, those shire officials, who knowingly allowed the Underground Railroad to work in their towns, dollop slaves prison-break north, or those who facilitated hiding Jewish common people during World War II, not enforcing Nazi deportation laws did the right, though not the juridical thing. They were in point of fact obeying a higher unconstrained or upright law.
Similarly, it may be defendable where a measure is clearly not constitutional. The norm, of course, is to advocate the canon as written. BKH: Some would use this position to justify opposition to enforcing felonious immigration law.
What are your thoughts on this? JM: The western everybody has superficially followed the axiom that foreigners amongst us should be treated with respect; however, I think that does not denote granting people who have broken our laws either citizenship rights or the benefits of citizenship. You do not guerdon the breaking of corollary through law. That just doesn't convert high-minded or legal sense. Those wishing to become Americans must follow our immigration laws.
Those who feeling we penury to earmark more immigrants into this country must work through the Congress to vary the law. BKH: Are there ever valid reasons to not follow the intent of the US Constitution? JM: Never. BKH: What are the fundamental steps that must be bewitched in Washington to "support and watch over the US Constitution" once again? JM: We must first-rate officials who will espouse the Constitution's initial intent and stand against the intact notion of statism: the erroneous conviction that government is all powerful and responsible for granting our rights. Our rights come from God, and the Constitution is the means of securing those rights to life, self-determination and the looking for of happiness.
Additionally, judges must be held answerable to their obscenity to protect the Constitution BKH: Do you put faith this will be done? JM: Yes, I find creditable we’re heading in that direction. The American following is awakening to the solvency critical time brought on by statism and the lead balloon to follow the Constitution. Primary choosing results in the lower-48 suggest that Congress will have a dramatically varied look in January 2011. BKH: If you are elected to the pose of US Senator for Alaska, what are the most significant things Alaskans and all Americans can look forward from you on their behalf in Washington? JM: I will commemorate my warrant to the Constitution.
I will chore tirelessly to avoid the in view insolvency crisis, repeal ObamaCare, take a stand against Cap and Trade, and inverse the growth of government. It is span for true change away from the long discredited kink that "big government" knows best and back to our Constitutional moorings, radical in individual freedom and personal responsibility. Americans can envision me to act with virtue and candor. I look up to getting this message out to the people of Alaska and, with their support, entrancing these values to Washington.
You can catch on more about Joe Miller at Everyone knows George Washington is considered the Father of our Country and the first off President of the United States. Did you be familiar with Washington's is considered so noted that it is interpret in its all every year in the Senate, and beginning in 1862 has been look over in one or both chambers of Congress every year. I was struck by the relevancy of his words as we expression at our federal government today, especially these paragraphs.
Contained in Washington's Farewell Speech of 1796: All obstructions to the skill of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever specious character, with the earnest structure to direct, control, counteract, or awe the likeable deliberation and skirmish of the constituted authorities, are damaging of this intrinsic principle, and of murderous tendency. They last to organize faction, to give it an factitious and extraordinary force; to put, in the billet of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a paltry but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the take triumphs of sundry parties, to make the viewable administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and unsuitable projects of faction, rather than the organ of in harmony and wholesome plans digested by stale counsels and modified by mutual interests. However, combinations or associations of the above kidney may now and then surrejoinder popular ends, they are likely, in the lecture of time and things, to become effective engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to topple the energy of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the keeping of your government, and the permanency of your up to date exhilarated state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance offbeat oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you hold the line with concern the spirit of novelty upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One pattern of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution.
As Americans, we must honor our US Constitution or suffer defeat our avenue as a country, a culture, and a people. We must persist our state leadership spend up to their responsibilities to the Constitution and their oath in bankroll and defense of it. As voters we must spirited up to our responsibilities in our governing as intended in our constitutional legacy. We must endure to call into the constitutionality of legislation within our magisterial system.
The US Constitution is meant to out our states and to keep our people. We must vote for politicians that have found out the intent of the Founding Fathers, attend to the sacredness of our Constitution, will maintain the true purpose of the Constitution on our behalf, and will back the integrity of their oath of office. We must agree no less. The federal government is not meant to hold aptitude over our liberty.
We declared our sovereignty against this strain of governing in 1776. We must referendum for federal leadership that does not receive their oath to "support and defend the US Constitution" as bare words to jerk aside as soon as they have pledged them as a part of their swearing-in ceremony.
Video:
Read the very informative article: read more
