s is the same sort of government high school propaganda that we've been fed for over 200 years that brings us to where all of the excuses credited for the 1787 Con-Job are now bringing us to a collapse of America.
Anyone who supports the Con-Job but has never studied the words of the anti-Federalists is living in a dream world.
The one important thing about the 1787 Constitution is that at present we are struck with it until the present system collapses as it is in process of doing. It was fraudulently superimposed upon that extant government under the 1777 Articles of Confederation which required unanimous agreement for any changes which might be added to it. The existing Congress never authorized a scrapping of the Articles, nor could it, so on the face of it the Constitution is illegal.
While the Articles called for unanimity in any changes, the new Con-Job called for a two/thirds majority, in other words it scrapped the republican mandate in favor of the inferior democratic one. However, considering the opposition to the Con-Job by delegates refusing to even attend, including one whole state, the Con-Job could not even muster a two/thirds majority for its own passage. As the new agreement assumed all rights and sovereignty formerly belonging to the people and the states, some delegates insisted that a bill of rights be appended returning some of the more basic rights surrendered before they would sign. Still many refused to sign.
Despite all the patriotic hoopla about the Con-Job in our government schools, the real intentions of the Founding Scoundrels tell the real story. By agreement the delegates withheld publishing of their private notes for a term of some fifty years, if I remember correctly, which shows they had something to hide. Then what were published were probably edited to further hide their real intentions. The only one I've found that is raw and unedited is by John Lansing, a synopsis of which you may find here: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=74897 He also edited the notes of his fellow Marylander, Yates which is a valuable read and easily available from www.omnicbc.com. The most easily found notes are of Madison but it must be remembered that he was anti-republican. I know there were others and if anyone can steer me on to them I'd appreciate it.
As I said we are stuck with what is until the present system self-destructs. We need to study pre-democracy systems like that of Exodus 18:21 and prepare for the next go-round. Nothing lasts forever, especially on this mudball. Things have a beginning, go through a period of growth and decay, and come to an end. That's the way of the physical universe. The lack of sanity in the humanoid mammalian helps it along, and we sure could do better than under the present system that finds enemies to kill as fast as it can create them.
Best regards,
Bob Taft
The Taft Ranch
Upton, Wyoming
------------------------
More on link:
Folks, if you are inclined to listen to internet radio I suggest you try Jeff Bennett's evening program - (8:00pm EST - 7:00pm CT - 5:00 PST) check the right hand side of the Federal Observer to link to it.
SOURCE PAGE: http://www.federalobserver.com/
http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/04/24/constitution-101-chapter-ii/#more-2233
Constitution 101: Chapter II
const_flag
April 24, 2009 - As I mentioned in my last installment, the proposals to draft a Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation were made within days of each other. The war for independence was still in its early stages and the fight would continue for years.
It speaks volumes about the mindset of the Continental Congress that it took them only two days to edit and agree upon the final draft of the Declaration of Independence, yet it took more than a year to agree upon a revised, and much weakened, version of the Articles of Confederation. It must be remembered that the blood of their fellow countrymen was still fresh upon the ground at Lexington and Concord, spilled by British soldiers. It was not unreasonable that they would readily agree upon a document proclaiming their independence, yet hesitate to so quickly agree upon a document giving that would grant government anything that might be considered oppressive power. The belief was that if they granted their new government too much power they would merely be replacing one tyrant for another.
Even in its weakened form, the Articles of Confederation were not unanimously agreed upon by the states until March of 1781, just 8 months prior to the defeat of the British at Yorktown and the end of the Revolutionary War.
Due to their trepidation what the states ended up with was a government that was more window dressing than anything else. It was so deficient and ineffective that it was a government in name only.
Even while the Congress acted as de facto government, its powers were almost non-existent. Due to the limitations upon the powers of Congress imposed by the Articles, the states retained almost all the power, making it difficult for Congress to function with any authority.
There were a few successes, such as the Treaty of Paris, which ended the war, and the Land Ordinance Act of 1785, which established the procedures for admitting new states to the Union.
Even so, it was apparent even before the Revolutionary War ended that Congress was powerless to raise the revenue required to operate. Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, Congress could only request that the states contribute fund to the Treasury, they had no authority at all to levy taxes.
It was obvious that the Congress needed some sort of authority to levy taxes, so the Congress applied to the states, which means they asked permission, for the power to levy the necessary taxes to provide for the operation of the government.
Can you imagine Congress today pleading with you for permission to increase the amount of money they could take out of your pay to fund for all their unlimited spending. I can hear you now, “Gee, I don’t think so Mr. Congressman.” If they asked me, I would tell them to take a flying leap at the moon, if I was that polite!
Even so, twelve states agreed to their request, with Rhode Island being the only holdout. Unfortunately, under the Articles of Confederation, a unanimous was required and the request was denied. That left the Congress with no power to raise the required funds to operate, plunging the federal government into debt.
The Liberum Veto, or the ability of any state by a no vote to veto legislation, was another weakness of the Articles of Confederation. One single state could, by voting no, or having its delegates to Congress absent when a vote was taken, could defeat a piece of legislation. We talk about gridlock in Washington D.C. now. Can you imagine how difficult it would have been to accomplish anything when a single state could throw a monkey wrench into the works?
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
