The Declaration of Independence is Unconstitutional

Human Events

While there is plenty of talk and rhetoric proclaiming all that is "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional", when we examine and recognize that document which more than any other represents the soul of America, we find that document is: The Declaration of Independence.

With the simple preface, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", the novel idea of constructing government solely as best servant to the People and their God given privileges was born.

Because of the Declaration, and specifically this prefatory clause, the United States has developed a whole philosophy of thought called "American Exceptionalism".

This philosophy is what makes us special, different from any other nation on earth, and dare I say...

Better!

To the chagrin, of our current Commander in Chief, better is not better at all. In fact, better, a.k.a. American Exceptionalism, in the mind of our exalted leader, is arrogance.

To think, that we individuals might strive for excellence, driven by nothing other than our own will and the Providential opportunity with which we are presented is obscene to those like Obama who embrace a Statist ideology.

At his core, the Statist is a parasite who requires a subjugated public to advance himself. Unlike the rugged individualist who advances by grit and determination, the Statist assembles his power through propaganda that pits those rugged individualists in society who have achieved, against the sloth groups who have been convinced that achievement is an accidental occurrence falling upon those who have been "lucky".

Out of this thinking is bred a whole line of thought that has undermined our Founders vision for America and has convinced our populace that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document which must be tempered by the populist mood of the age.

And of what character is this mood which is now arbiter and driver of public policy in America?

Schizophrenic, ignorant, sanctimonious, and dishonest are adjectives which come to mind.

It would seem, if we could apply contemporary American views and compare them to the theme of the foundational clause upon which our whole government has been built we ought to be able to find a congruence of understanding.

Let's try:

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

These truths are unarguable, anyone from any walk of life, regardless of background, social or economic class, educated or uneducated would agree on undeniable fundamental truths. What are fundamental truths? Do all our inhabitants agree about them?

that all men are created equal,

declaring us all subject to the same unarguable truths, the same rule, and the same law. No individual or group would be afforded any more or any less in the eyes of our law; ergo, it is not by accident that Lady Justice adorns a blindfold when ascertaining weights on a balance scale.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

That separation of Church and State thing kind of falls apart right here. Unalienable meaning that they cannot be taken away, and that we are endowed by our Creator—God, specifying exactly who endowed us with our Rights. It is not a stretch to infer government's only role here is to protect what God has provided. Do all American's believe this? Is this the contemporary understanding of "Constitutional"?

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While the Founders were content to allow us to use our imagination in interpreting what unalienable rights we were endowed with, they wrote down a couple to make sure we got onto the right track. Our most important rights were listed, and it is not by accident that Life was put first.

The order of rights was listed in a prioritized manner exalting Life the supreme right, and should any Right conflict with another, the latter would yield to the former.

If a mother felt pregnancy was in some way threatening to her Liberty, her baby's right to Life was, in the scheme of things, of such priority that mom's Liberty could be impinged for the duration of the child's term. Using the word "was" instead of "is" might seem offensive, however, in today's culture, do we respect this distinction? Is abortion today viewed as greater right than is Life?

Has Roe vs. Wade established a women's right to end her pregnancy at any point before a child's birth, for any reason? Have we not heard Senators and Representatives state that the "right to choose" is a Constitutional right?

Politicians love to invoke all that is "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional" in support of their views or positions, but if we cannot even agree on the most fundamental right from our most fundamental document, how on earth can we intellectually interpret whether or not Arizona can or cannot ask someone who has broken a law if he/she is in this country legally or not?

Today the United States recognizes Constitutionality of the Constitution, based not at all upon the words of the document, but upon the urges and inclinations of those who have seized power by appealing to the largest voting bloc.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right which cannot be readily overturned, and in the contemporary interpretation, our Declaration of Independence is...

Unconstitutional.

Royal Douche 06.13.10

The Winner: Wilder Publications

The Reason: Placing warning labels on copies of the US Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, and Federalist Papers that read:

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

This is yet another libtard attempt to belittle these important documents to forward a progressive social/political agenda. Too bad people could actually see through this effort.

A Chance To Refine The Commerce Clause

Washington Post

Gary M. Galles

Minutes after President Obama signed the health care bill, constitutional challenges were filed.

Their key is the Commerce Clause, which, judicially redefined, is the sole constitutional rationale justifying many federal regulatory powers (which is why in law schools it is often called "the everything clause").

Under the Articles of Confederation, states were imposing duties on other states' goods. The Commerce Clause was designed to take that abusive power from the states by giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce; "regulate" meant "to make regular or normal" or "to remove impediments," but not to authorize federal control following the far different current meaning of "telling others what to do."

Federalist 11 indicates the Commerce Clause's intent as a limitation on states rather than federal carte blanche, "prohibitory regulations, extending... throughout the states," without which "this intercourse would be fettered, interrupted and narrowed by a multiplicity of causes."

Federalist 42 describes the main purpose as "the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter." Rather than authorizing federal dictation of anything remotely related to commerce, it provides "restraints imposed on the authority of the States," citing Switzerland, where "each Canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction... without an augmentation of the tolls," as its main illustration.

The Commerce Clause's narrow intended scope was cemented in Federalist 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." It was this stringent constraint on federal power that made the Commerce Clause one "few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."

Following our Founders' intent, until 1887, the Commerce Clause was used only to overturn state restrictions on interstate commerce. But then the courts began reinterpreting its ban of state-imposed restrictions into an open invitation to federal dictates, particularly in Wickard v. Filburn, in 1942.

Justice Robert H. Jackson's opinion eliminated virtually all Commerce Clause bounds on federal powers: "[E]ven if appellee's activities be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." In other words, the federal power to regulate interstate commerce extended to banning (far from "removing impediments" to trade) production (not commerce) occurring in a single state (not among states). Anything judged to have a substantial effect, including any "practices affecting prices" - that is, any business practice - became fair game for federal regulation. We see the results in the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies now engulfing us.

However, since 1995, the Supreme Court has rediscovered the Commerce Clause's restrictions on federal authority. It found neither gun possession near schools nor violence against women sufficiently related to commerce to authorize federal legislation.

If the Supreme Court follows the Constitution as written, federal health "reform" will be rejected. If Wickard's almost unlimited discretion is maintained as a valid precedent, it will be accepted. If more recent precedents are followed, it will depend on what the justices deem sufficiently connected to commerce. In particular, does Congress have the power to force people to buy health insurance - to override non-commerce (choosing not to buy) in the name of regulating commerce?

Health care reform offers hope that an important constitutional restriction will be taken seriously again. It also offers risk that it will be further gutted. That alternative is chilling for those without total faith in the federal government. As Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in the 1995 Lopez ruling: "If we were to accept the government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate."

Gary M. Galles is professor of economics at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif.

Robocop's Comment:

How the SCOTUS defines the "commerce clause" will depend on if the Libtards installed all the judicial activists they needed to uphold federal tyranny.