The specific powers of the newly configured U.S. federal government were debated quite vehemently in 1787, in Philadelphia, during the Constitutional Convention. In his Federalist 44 essay, the Honorable James Madison wrote that year that “limited federal government is the ultimate objective and purpose of the kind of federalism that will be restricted by specific constitutional limitations.” Madison’s cogent writing on the separation of powers fully delineated the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the federal government from each other, but, moreover, defined the mission of the new U.S. Constitution as specifically spelling-out, and specifying each and every power that was to be exercised by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, and, by unalterable amendment reserving by inalienable right all other powers to the States, or the People, which were not denied them in the Constitution. Why was this purposefully done by the Framers, to specifically restrict the federal, central, government to delegated powers set with specifically defined boundaries, while allowing the States all other powers that were not denied to the States specifically by the Constitution? Simply put, the People of the newly formed USA had learned not to trust a federal government with unlimited power. They had already dealt with a tyrannical King George III, a British monarchy with unlimited power, which had no regard whatsoever for the natural and inalienable rights of man; and the States did not want to allow such unlimited power to again denigrate and take away their God-given rights. Hence, the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the chartered first ten unalterable amendments to the U.S. Constitution, specifically pronounced upon the federal government its limitations. Per the 10th Amendment, it was limited specifically to the Legislative powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, to the specific Executive branch powers of Article 2, and to the specific Judicial branch powers contained in Article 3. The only provision given in Article 1, Section 8 for additional laws to be passed by the Legislative branch in furtherance of the powers already specifically delegated to the Legislative branch, Clauses 1-17, was Clause 18, which states that the Congress shall have the power to enact all laws “necessary and proper” to the execution of the powers so specified in Article 1, Section 8.
I personally believe that the word “essential” should have been used by the Framers instead of its synonym “necessary, as it would have more stringently stressed the importance of understanding that only when” imperative” to the execution of the specified federal powers, Clauses 1-17, would other laws be deemed proper and so legislated. Of course, the honored Framers considered their words in the U.S. Constitution for implicit as well as explicit meaning and understanding. There were many unspecified and less-detailed aspects of the Constitution that the collective Framers felt were matters of common sense to be understood unambiguously by the electorate, and which didn’t need to be overly-stated by rhetoric in utterly simplistic words, such as the term “natural born citizen,” a specific unique requirement set forth by Article 2 for for all people seeking the office of the President of the United States. The Framers, and the collective electorate, had understood its meaning in 1789 to mean a person born on American soil to parents who were both U.S. citizens. Yet, the implicit meaning that has been applied to “natural born citizenship” in the 20th Century has been that it is no different from the “U.S. citizenship” required of those men, or women, who are elected as U.S. senators and representatives, which is very different from the aforementioned 18th Century meaning of “natural born citizenship.” This esteemed regard that the Framers had for the electorate had a great deal to do with the fact that 99 percent of the adult voting electorate at that time in the thirteen original States had read and understood the “Federalist Papers,” cogent essays explaining the way the federal government would function, written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton in 1787, which were published in all of the circulated newspapers. In the year, 2010 the dismal statistic was published that less than 5 percent of the 21st Century American electorate (many millions more U.S. citizen men and women eighteen years and older than in 1789) had read merely one of the essays of the “Federalist Papers.” What might have contributed to this demise of public knowledge about the ends and means of federalism was the crude and alarming statement made by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914 about the U.S. Constitution, and the men who wrote it, that “progress cannot be made by strictly observing the constitutional constraints made by simple-minded men fettered by less than a practical and pragmatic view of world affairs.” This is why, beginning with the disdainfully “progressive” disregard for Constitutional prohibitions by Theodore Roosevelt, the men and women who misguided American federal government in a new century were properly called ” pragmatic progressives.”
The crux of this essay article deals with the powers that have been specifically allotted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, and those powers which are only to be possessed by the States, or the People, which the federal government cannot legally possess under any conditions or circumstances. One of these powers is that of public education, over which the federal government has unlawfully claimed jurisdiction by the establishment of a federal department of education; and when this usurpation of federal power occurred, in 1979, the States did nothing unitedly to oppose the creation of the cabinet-level U.S. Department of Education. The mandate of this unconstitutional creation was stated in the Democrat Party-led legislation which authorized its creation, as the Department of Education Organization Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979.
“The primary functions of the Department of Education are to “establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.”
That public education was totally beyond the Constitutional scope of federal authority and jurisdiction, and a power reserved only to the States, had been established in 1828 during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Yet, the progressive (the pragmatic disregard of U.S. Constitutional mandates) Republican President, Warren G. Harding, proposed the establishment of a federal department of education and welfare as early as 1923. Please note that the proposal had not originated in Congress, but within the Executive branch, and that no debate had been conducted and placed on the record by the Legislative branch, Congress, against such an unconstitutional proposal. Then later, in 1953, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower established by Executive branch fiat, without Congressional authorization (through a bureaucratic reorganization plan – Reorganization Plan Number 1) a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. For some reason that defies logic and explanation, this Executive department created without legislation was allowed to continue by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, even though the power of Executive legislation through reorganization was disallowed, and prohibited in 1962. Just like the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture by FDR, which was totally unconstitutional, the federal government had stuck its unwelcome nose into State education, and the federal nose was only to grow inexorably longer within the next forty years.
The dangerous precedent set by the intervention of the federal government into State education, in contravention to the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, provoked a most egregious issue to be considered. What power can’t the federal government claim over the States, or the People? By logically approaching this poignant issue, one can immediately surmise that if the federal government can, with impunity, legislate laws governing education, civil rights, and health care (which are not delegated federal powers), and have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the claimed federal powers are constitutional, it could, therefore, legislate laws regulating the birth of children in the States, making it against federal law to use midwives to have children born at home; and have the legislation proclaimed constitutional by the Supreme Court. Such laws, it seems, would only strike tyranny in the minds and heats of freedom-loving 20th and 21st Century Americans if they were suddenly and unexpectedly applied and enforced. If the federal government can, with impunity, ignore the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, what is standing in the way of it ignoring the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments and passing laws in contravention to those inalienable rights? The 4th Amendment has already been greatly trampled, and every day fascist opponents of the 2nd Amendment are working to trample that inalienable right. Aren’t the rights guaranteed to the States, or the People, in the 10th Amendment just as important as the rights guaranteed by the other nine Amendments of the Bill of Rights?
Please gravely consider the following. If the federal government has the ignoble capacity and the imperious means to tyrannically create “civil rights” legislation illicitly using the power of the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, when no such actual power existed, or currently exists, allowing the federal government to legislate civil rights laws upon the States. what real capacity does the federal government have to exert fascist tyranny over the States by illegally creating other powers that it does not have under the U.S. Constitution? When pompously progressive and pragmatic U.S. senators and representatives stand on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives and proclaim and demand that federal laws, totally restricted by the lack of Constitutional federal power to pass them, be passed “because they need to be passed,” they are essentially proclaiming that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer matter. They are proclaiming that the republic is not a nation of laws, but of whimsical men and women.
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights is as inviolable as an inalienable right of the States, or the People, as is the 1st Amendment. Yet, the 14th Amendment was intended by Northern politicians, in 1865, to subjugate the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to capricious legislative purposes. Instead of openly admitting that the 14th Amendment was intended to deny the States their rights under the 10th Amendment, the obscene part of the 14th Amendment, called the Equal Protection Clause, was subtly written and intended to provide a means for every aberrant whim of special interest by one or more citizens of the USA, to be regarded as protected by federal law. This opened the door for unlimited control by the federal government of matters that were regarded by the Framers, and by original common law, as only the business of the States, or the People. By affirming that the federal government has the Constitutional privilege to arbitrarily create powers under which to make laws, statutes, codes, and regulations controlling the activities of the People of the republic (such as public health care, education, marriage, and civil rights) the very substrate of Constitutional law, according to the 10th Amendment, is vilified and effaced. The Northern politicians, vengeful and pragmatic in their desire and efforts to eviscerate the Southern States, knew that the Framers had contemplated a measure tantamount to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for inclusion in the U.S. Constitution during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and had rejected it by a great majority; realizing that it would lead to an inexorably proliferated, and controlling federal government. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1865 only through illegal coercion upon the Southern States, and common law contract doctrine made its ratification blatantly void upon its face. But the effect of illicit Northern pragmatism prevailed.
The majority of the rank-and-file American electorate goes about their daily activities in the 21st Century imagining that the U.S. Constitution, as it was written and “properly” amended, is the highest law of the land, is respected by the federal government, and fully restricts tyranny from being enacted on the American republic in limiting what the federal government can do to the People. Most of these unwitting Americans know very little about Constitutional law and do not realize that over the last 110 years the U.S. Constitution has been quietly altered without the amendment process by the federal government, and that the central government can pretty much do what it wants to do without regard for the prohibitions of Constitutional law. Why has this happened? Well, first off, the federal bureaucracy will vehemently lie and deny that such illicit changes have been made in the Constitution without the amendment process being used. But the examples of these changes are rife, and a major one is the change that occurred in the federal court system by a simple act of Congress, which altered the strict requirement stated in Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, as shown below:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states; between citizens of different states; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”
The Judiciary Act of 1891, a mere congressional act (which created the United States Courts of Appeal and rendered a part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction discretionary subject to grant of “writ of certiorari”), supposedly relieved pressure on the Supreme Court’s docket by changing the strict requirement set by the Framers in the Constitution for “ALL” cases rising through the appellate courts under the Constitution and the laws of the United States to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. As you can see, the legislative proposal for the Juduciary Act of 1891 was not predicated upon, but against, the U.S. Constitutional requirement set forth in Article 3, Section 2. The legislation was based upon a purely progressive and pragmatic need that opposed the wisdom of the Framers, which declared that “the end result of such legislation would justify the “illegal” means used to obtain it.”
This 1891 Act of Congress was proclaimed as constitutional, but was it really a legal constitutional exercise of the federal government? At that particular time in history, no one really cared or posited the specific issue of legislative constitutionality for consideration. It was then the advent of an age of pragmatism and progressivism without regard for the rule of law, something that was new to the republic. As a prime example of non-amendment change to the U.S. Constitution, this significant alteration of Article 3, Section 2 resulted in many American citizens, federal litigants with purely constitutional cases against which the U.S. appellate courts had ruled, being denied hearings by the U.S. Supreme Court. The rule of “writ of certiorari” amounted, and still amounts, to a popularity contest between litigants based on which litigant can produce the most persuasive appeal for a hearing in a writ of certiorari. If the U.S. Supreme Court currently declines acceptance of a particular writ of certiorari and refuses to hear the case, the ruling of the highest appellate court stands, even if it was an unconstitutional ruling and needed to be reversed.
What began by the wisdom of the honored Framers, in 1789, as a matter of the judicial right of all appellate litigants bringing cases through the federal court system to be heard by the Supreme Court, is now a purely political process determining which appellate litigants, of the many deserving litigants, will be admitted before the now “regal” court. In essence, for the nine justices to have the power to pick and choose which cases they hear is a great miscarriage of justice. In effect, the high court is telling all of the needy less-fortunate litigants, who were not chosen to be heard by the court, that they can just go to hell.
With a federal government that has given itself the unconstitutional authority to create its own pragmatic justification for proclaiming power to legislate, enforce, and interpret laws regulating the lives of the People, tyranny upon the States, or the People, is inevitable. What “can’t” the federal government do to adversely affect the lives of the People of the United States? Well, if the federal government has given itself the power, over the States, to determine who can, and cannot, have an abortion, to determine the definition of marriage, to determine the scope and application of State healthcare, to determine that homosexuality is a viable lifestyle, to determine that a person born as a man can be legally and constitutionally called a woman, and that men thinking that they are women can constitutionally use women’s restrooms, it can speciously proclaim the power to tell the People where they can live, what to eat and drink, and what clothing to wear. Didn’t the federal government proclaim by the specious 18th Amendment (which was as illegally ratified as the 14th Amendment) that they had the power to tell Americans what they could, and not, drink? In the illicit invasion of State health care by the federal government, all that was needed to get the unconstitutional legislative health care ball rolling was for Barack Obama, and Democrat senators and representatives, to have mouthed publicly that “the uninsured people of the United States “need” to have health insurance provided by the federal government. Health care is “needed” and it’s the “right” thing to do.” The whole essence of this vile usupation of federal power was based on pragmatic need, not upon the constraints placed on the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. To be quite frank about it, there is actually no end in sight to the federal fascism that, by illegally assumed power of the federal government, could supplant all of the basic liberties and freedoms guaranteed to the States, or the People, by the Bill of Rights. It is just a matter of time before it happens.