John Meoff wrote:
Some Inconvenient Background Of The Constitution
With Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination for The Supreme Court by Donald J. Trump, there has been much lamenting about protecting our constitutional rights. What are our constitutional rights? Some history is informative.
When the Constitutional Convention was announced, two states specifically instructed their delegates to not draft a new constitution to replace The Articles of Confederation. Two states had established religions. Rhode Island did not send a delegate.
The purposes of The Constitution were “to…form a more perfect Union, establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty…” They were laid out in The Preamble.
The Federalist Papers were written to persuade a reluctant New York to ratify The Constitution and become the ninth and deciding state to make it legal. New York didn’t but New Hampshire did then Virginia, another reluctant state.
There were ample objections to it, many published in the Anti-Federalist Papers. Patrick Henry was among the most prominent, asking who gave them the right to speak for we the people, referring to The Preamble. The delegates were not elected but appointed so he had a valid point.
The First Congress convened on April 1 (a good date for any government to convene), 1789 and George Washington was inaugurated on April 30 but North Carolina and Rhode Island still had not ratified. North Carolina did on November 21, 1789 but Rhode Island remained recalcitrant.
This so incensed Congress that the Senate passed a bill banning all trade with it which would have effectively isolated it. There also was a proposal to subject its products to tariffs, like a foreign country.
Before the House could vote on it, the state ratified on May 29, 1790 by a vote of the legislature by 34-32. It was the only state to ratify by legislative act rather than by a convention. It had rejected numerous attempts to even have one.
From all of this, it should be obvious that the states were very jealous of their autonomy and demanded assurance that it would respected. It hasn’t. Today, all states are considered subjugate to the federal government. The 1783 Treaty of Paris, ending the War for Independence, was worded in such a way that the Crown accepted the independence of thirteen free & separate states, i.e. countries.
It is reasonable to conclude that The Constitution was meant to be a strait-jacket of restriction of the federal government’s power and not an enabling document as has been the case, especially since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And that is one of the prime things that should be on the minds of our judges but it won’t be.
The Constitution was supposed to restrict the power of the federal government. The debate should center around whether any law increases federal government power or decreases state power and individual freedom. Almost all laws fail that test and most, therefore, should never have been passed. Few in government will accept that. It’s about time they did.
Some Inconvenient Background Of The Constitution b... (
show quote)
Only when Fed Gov Folk live by the 10th Amendment will this Nation be what Our Founding Fathers designed. Limited Fed Powers. Max State Powers.