In the American regime, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” No one branch is superior to it; all three branches have a duty to abide by it. While each of the three branches plays a unique role in the passage, execution, and interpretation of laws, all of the branches must work together in the governing process.
Does any know why the Constitution is referred to as the “supreme law of the land”? It seems rather odd that a document that started as an enlarged one-piece of parchment would ever be considered as a law of the land. However, when one takes the time to understand what it was precisely that those fifty-five men at Philly were trying to do – and once having the majority of the work done – the first order of business was getting their newly re-formed unique republican style government ratified by the then and still original 13 states.
We are consistently being surprised over and over again as new research becomes available or some individual sheds some light on the gravity and magnitude of what was being said based on the astute writing skills of those who bothered to take notes.
At any rate in order for the Constitution to pass it needed 9 out of the 13 states to agree with what it said and having the states’ legislatures vote to make it become their laws as well. And of course this is where the Federalist Papers come in handy insofar as the majority of them were indeed essays written by a few of the men who were intricately involved with writing and design of the Constitution.
Furthermore, 9 out of 13 states approving was unacceptable by these gentlemen’s standards. They wanted and strived for 13 out of 13 and hence the ratification process took far more time getting done than what they had expected. We would like to add that their standard was high; subsequently, at times when they had 9 or 10 states approval they did not lower their bar of acceptable standards.
Quite the contrary – these men who we commonly refer to as the Founding Fathers would have nothing to do with lowering the bar of acceptable standards. Furthermore, when most people think of the Constitution what they’re really thinking about is the Bill of Rights – those uniquely sacred first ten amendments to the Constitution. Interestingly – at the time that ratification was at a fever pitch – the Bill of Rights was not a part of the Constitution…yet. Suffice as it may, the Bill of Rights were enacted during the First Congress and placed at the beginning of the Constitution; the supreme law of the land was ratified within days.
So then why is the Constitution the supreme law of the land? According to Constitutional scholar and writer of best-selling books, it is the notion from his masterpiece – Original Meanings – that only because the full country endorsed the Constitution, it therefore became the law of the land. The writer, statesman, and educator is Jack N. Rakove, Professor of History at Stanford University who was the recipient of the National Endowment for the Humanities which awarded him the Constitutional Fellowship to further his research and prepare teaching materials for law professors, history professors, and assorted other worthy teaching professionals.
The phrase “stunning development” is used far too often in our politics, but here is an item that can be described in no other way: Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats, frustrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights interferes with their desire to muzzle their political opponents, have proposed to repeal the First Amendment.
That is precisely what the so-called People’s Rights Amendment would do. If this amendment were to be enacted, the cardinal rights protected by the First Amendment — free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances — would be redefined and reduced to the point of unrecognizability. The amendment would hold that the rights protected by the Constitution are enjoyed only by individuals acting individually; individuals acting in collaboration with others would be stripped of those rights.
So much more to come regarding the Bill of Rights and their importance to the “balance of power…”
If anyone we’re to ask you “What Would the Founders Do” we think it is a very simple conclusion to say: What Founders? By this we mean that if government were remotely close to functioning then as the current government is now, suffice it to say that we believe that the US Constitution (“The Law of the Land”) would never have been ratified full stop.
In addition, without the Constitution being ratified by first nine of the thirteen states which at the time was definitely a quorum however; those involved felt the need to have all thirteen ratify the document prior to the first presidential election in the newly established United States of America.
If there is a serious reader among us here we suggest looking into the Federalist Papers as well as the Anti-Federalists Papers and come to a conclusion of your own.
Ladies and gentlemen we are being faced (if not forced) to see at work the unparalleled and not very sophisticated tyranny of mainly one person – Barack Obama – and his minions backing him in the order of complete and unrelenting rhetoric, politics, and bull squat.
We are not here to discuss partisan politics, or what side of the aisle one may sit in; furthermore, we have not decided to take time to write of these nonsensical events simply insofar as not only are they demeaning but they are foolish as well.
We wish to make sure however that we are all on the same page and at least looking at the same foolishness.
Now that the House Committee on Reform and Government Activities is lead by a “non-yes man” Representative Darrel Issa and committee members have had a read of only five (5) percent of the total documents and what they have found has caused manure thrown into the fan as it were, and just like turning on the lights in a cockroach invested apartment…scatter!!
Panic does a lot of different functions to humankind. For some it assists our brains to think critically and survive the most horrific accidents known; while in others it may do just the opposite; noncritical thinking, desperation, and acting so irrationally that one begins to doubt in all earnest one’s sanity.
Now enter in President Barack Obama who without the foresight enacts some ridiculous Executive Privilege which clearly shows he is aware of the proceedings which he has denied since day one. And ladies and gentlemen this is where Tyranny rears its ugly head. Whenever a government uses oppression such as executive orders to bypass Congress, and within days or weeks uses a claim of executive privilege to obstruct justice in a cruel and injustice way there is only one way one is able to look at this…and that is the cruel use of power, oppression, injustice, and factions to control and preserve matters his way.
Lastly just one question or two – we know that Obama was not only a believer in but many feared also a partaker in Marxist revolutionary doctrine. So predicated upon this we need to ask ourselves prior to November 6, 2012: Is Barack Obama trying to create that revolution such as Ernesto “Che” Guevara or Castro did? Is he trying to continue with this totalitarianism form of government?
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, Natural laws are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
Very interesting to us and the public at large is a letter written on March 29, 1792 published in a New York newspaper, and written by James Madison. There cannot be any doubt as to why and with what motives that the then Congressman Madison wrote the essay insofar as this was the same time when the Federalist Papers were being written; therefore, it is our opinion that Madison was writing in support of the new Constitution.
Even more captivating is the notion that Madison is defining what natural rights are and who they apply to; furthermore, Madison is also writing about those commonly held rights what are referred to as natural law or in a language of his time was referred to as property. However, most importantly Madison is trying to reconcile both, that will lead to in the culminating of the right to conscience.
Quoting directly now from Madison’s essay in letter form: “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
“In its larger and more just meaning, it embraces everything to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage.
“In the former sense, a man’s land or merchandise or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in hisreligious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
“He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”
Now from Madison’s perspective there are phenomenons of various sorts that interfere with man’s full enjoyment of his rights. One such is where there is an excess of power prevails and property of no sort is duly respected. No person is safe in their opinions, their persons, faculties, or any of their possessions. He further mentions that the excess of liberty will do the same, though from a different cause.
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the in the various rights of individuals; being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man that of which is his own.
“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property, more sacred than his castle and all his possessions.” Now there are three matters that Madison revoltingly warns everyone of pursuant to the government:
”That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizen for the service of the rest.” Interestingly he compares anyone in a government that takes from one for the assistance of others as, “…proverbial of the most complete despotism.”
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one of the species of property and reward another species; where arbitrary taxes invade sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor.
”If the United States means to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights.
As we read this essay letter to the New York newspaper it reminded us of what the current administration has been doing, or leading to the fear of doing – taking money from the rich and disbursing it somehow to the poor; and by some declaration arbitrarily increasing a tax burden that has already hideously favors everyone except the rich.
Our goal is to sort out if this type of conflict that exists in America today — starting with reactionary progressivism, conservatism, and liberalism and has these ideologies occurred in America’s history before. Additionally, according to both experts we’ve dealt with they are not certain if there has ever been an executive branch of government that has been so careless whilst not giving careful attention to the details of America’s founding documents: The Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers or any other writings that have been left behind by America’s Founding Fathers.
In our combined experience never have we seen or experienced the disregard or absolute showing no concern to matters such as a little notion we call “the rule of law” that is allegedly the law of the land pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. What we have seen is recklessness of almost every sort. The mere intonation that the Founder’s “got it wrong” according to President Obama does not set a favorable opinion in our eyes; furthermore, a Commander-in-Chief who has soldiers and marines as well as the most powerful Air Force in the world in the thick of it even now has reckless disregard for Executive Orders, matters of congressional dealings, who no doubt spends more time speaking with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about how to cover his arse from the Fast & Furious operation.
If we were to move on to the domestic agenda which we are sure you are tired of hearing about the miniscule numbers both ways regarding unemployment; the housing industry is gone completely as we knew it; and is it too much to ask that after spending hundreds of billions of our dollars to “stimulate” or bail out recklessly operated companies, where is the love? In other words, where are my stock certificates? You bought energy (dare I even say that!) companies, auto manufactures, and complete brokerage houses and banks, and you know the old cliché, “possession is 9/10ths of the law” we can feel it before you even begin to try it.
Therefore, in reaction to the King’s continued interference in local affairs – his attacks on “popular Protestantism,” his disruption of the county (shires) communities, his assault on the corporate boroughs – a few thousand English men and women chose to leave the country. To these people King Charles must have seemed perfectly capable of establishing himself as an absolute ruler: the future of local society appeared dark to those who followed John Winthrop in 1630, and to the emigrants and settlers of the mid 1630s the situation must have looked nearly hopeless. Their response was essentially defensive, conservative, and even reactionary.
European history espouses that during this era Europe deeply resented innovation. Indeed, the participants in violent risings seemed “obsessed by renovation – by the desire to return to old customs and privileges, and to an old order of society.” Several scholars when addressing the English Civil War observe that “the great majority of the gentry and peasantry, in their almost morbid anxiety – in order to preserve the traditional fabric of local society generally stood side by side against their common enemy.”
These observations are not intended to imply that all colonists were of one mind about social institutions in the New World. They were not – plain and simple as that. The settlers’ English background produced both unity and diversity. The commonness they shared was with regard to their assault by the King on their autonomy which is essentially being left alone, having independence, being self-sufficient and the ability to render self-government.
Therefore when traveling to the New World, these adventure’s were careful to select respected civil and religious leaders and often times recruited their neighbors and it was not unusual for persons from the same small village to stay together once they had reached Massachusetts.