“It’s the Tax – Stupid!” (To paraphrase George Stephanopoulos)

Probably few are aware that “taxes” and their “imposition without representation” were at the foundation of the final decision to break away from Great Britain.

The infamous “Stamp Act” started it, followed by the Writs of Assistance and then the Townshend Acts.  All of these were designed to “extract” monies from the colonies by methods in which the colonists had no say!

It should not come as a surprise then that the Founding Fathers, when drafting the constitution, were “miserly” in their approach to finances.

Thus when it came to deciding how to “fund” the federal government, they limited the power to tax as follows:  “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, . . . ” Art. I, Sec. 8

Sec. 9 states, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, [unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.]”  And, “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

Sec. 10 states, “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws . . .”

To appreciate the significance of this, you must realize that the new Federal Government (1787) had no power to “invade the privacy” of a person’s “earnings/income”.

Of course, the XVI Amendment changed all that and destroyed any restraint! “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or  enumeration.”  That is about as close to the text of the Communist Manifesto as one could imagine.  Lest our readers think we are being too harsh, it was Karl Marx who unequivocally proposed in the Communist Manifesto his second requirement, “a graduated income tax”.  As we have seen, it can be used to redistribute the wealth of the people.

For the first 100+ years of the country’s existence, the federal government stayed within the bounds of the Constitution and lived on the monies provided by “Duties, Imposts and Excises”.  It was even possible for the federal government to retire the debts of the colonies incurred during the Revolutionary War. Through sound management of budget and fiscal policies they eliminated other debts while achieving a surplus in the treasury.

How you might ask was that possible when viewed against today’s debt ridden environment?

The answer lies in two areas: 1.) strict adherence to the limited government defined in the Constitution and 2.) avoidance of all pressures to become involved in any foreign and/or imperialistic activities.  There were no “entitlements”.  The basic, inalienable rights were stated in the Declaration of Independence.  Individuals were expected to depend on themselves; self-reliance was the order of the day.

Federal monies were not to be used for any particular group, individual or organization, including the states who were to manage their own affairs in a responsible manner.  Only silver and gold coin were to be used by states in payment of their debts!  (Art. I, Sec. 10)  

Consider what this might mean if practiced today!  No federal deficit!  No bailouts!  No protected organizations or entities!  No IRS!  No wire-tapping or invasion of privacy!

In short, the freedom, as sought (and fought for) by the Founding Fathers, was for everyone to lead their own lives with an absolute minimum of government interference or involvement. 

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

What’s The Difference?

Raising this question doesn’t always provide a suitable answer.  Too often, the respondent avoids a direct response attempting to divert the questioner’s attention.

This could be applied to the difference between the original concept of the US government and the present attitude of many elected officials.  In one case, there were strict limitations placed on the areas for involvement and the extent of the power being delegated.  In the other case, there is no limitation and a “centralized” government of national proportions becomes all powerful with the capability of regulating every aspect of the people’s lives, works and possessions.

One was called a “republic”.  The other is often termed a “socialist democracy”.  One was devised to protect the rights of the individuals allowing them to prosper and produce to whatever extent their abilities and talents could achieve.  The other assumes that the state is the granter of rights and privileges and the citizens exist primarily to serve the state. 

In the case of the limited government as propounded by the Founding Fathers, the government is the “servant” of the people.  It is only authorized to perform those functions that were deemed best managed by a central body or could not be adequately performed for the whole by the individual states or private enterprise.  There was to be no conflict between private and government areas of activity and the three branches of government created by the Constitution were to serve as checks and balances on each other to keep the system in equilibrium at all times.  

The Founders were well aware of the natural tendency of any person or group to expand and reach beyond their stated confines.  Thus, you find such restrictions as allowing the President to make appointments with the “advice and consent of the Senate”.  The same applies to Treaties!  Another instance is found in the power vested only in the House to initiate all money bills!  This was considered a safe guard in that the House would be more responsive to the people at large and Representatives were controlled by being elected every two years (a very short time frame in any era).

Individualism, self-reliance and moral character were considered basic attributes for each citizen of the new republic.  The concept of “let government do it” did not exist and it would take over 100 years before it surfaced, becoming in subsequent years, the dominant and driving force behind the present condition.

The “difference” in a socialist democracy is that the government “dictates” what citizens may do, how they may do it, when and where they may do it and ultimately whether they live or die.  Often overlooked is the fact that every new regulation (regardless of whether legally passed by Congress) adds a further restriction on an individual’s freedom.  In this respect, we are referring to “freedom of choice” as well as action.  While many such regulations are presented as being “in the public’s best interest”, that position is open to question if for no other reason than, “who says so?”  Do the politicians and bureaucrats really know “what is best for you”?  Aren’t you a better judge?  Shouldn’t you be free to make your own decisions without the interference of government?  While we can all decry a bad decision by an individual, this negates the fact that we learn more from our mistakes than from our successes.  This has been demonstrated too often to be overlooked.  The mere recognition of a mistake educates the individual who made it.  The educational value increases as the individual reviews, analyses and corrects whatever caused the mistake.  A governmental law, restriction or regulation cannot achieve such a result since there is no “learning by error” process involved.  And, no governmental action can conclusively prevent it from happening, regardless of how many laws have been passed addressing it.

 “Those who will not embrace freedom, are condemned to a life of servitude under state control.”

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com

©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

“The Forgotten 4 Words”

In reading the Preamble to the Constitution, one cannot help but notice the beginning words, “We the People”.  They are the most often quoted three words in the document.  They have been used and abused ever since first penned on paper.

Reflecting on them, it almost seems as if a restriction or a decision was made early on to overlook the 4 words that follow.  This raises the question of whether it was and is intentional or accidental.  Certainly if one considers the continued use of the initial three words, they would support the idea that the country was a democracy since it only references the people, at large and in total.

While there are those who will disagree or take an opposing viewpoint with the following, the fact is that throughout history, the socialists have always used the term “democracy” as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal of socialism with a government controlled economy and populace.  One need only read some of the expository treatises on Marxism to realize the truth of that statement.

Yet, the Founding Fathers knew full well what they were putting on paper when they added the four words that follow, “of the United States”.  The significance and understanding of those 4 additional words when added to the other three are critical.  They established the “federal” approach to the formation of a government because the “states” (formerly colonies) were considered sovereign and independent in their own right.  Factually, it was the states that ratified the constitution and put it in operation.  Yes, many of the states had voting procedures for having their citizens vote individually.  BUT, in the final analysis, it was the state voting as a unit or block that actually ratified the document.

Further proof that this was what the founders intended can be realized when one examines the earlier drafts of the document.  At one time, the opening paragraph listed all 13 colonies.  This was considered too cumbersome and awkward as well as difficult from a style standpoint.  However, the decision to add the 4 words we are discussing was the considered judgment probably of Gouveneur Morris who served as the stylist.  According to notes on the drafting of the Constitution, the 4 words were considered satisfactory since they “included” all the existing states and would allow for the addition of new states as the country grew and expanded westward.  This slight change avoided the potential problem they saw of having to re-write the constitution each time a new state was admitted in order to make the opening statement correct.

Now let’s look at the full meaning of the complete phrase, “We the People of the United States”.  Knowing that each state voted separately, thereby agreeing to the terms and conditions of the “contract” (and it was a contract between the states and the new federal government), they did so without relinquishing their rights and independence.  Proof of this point can be found in Amendments IX and X which are parts of the Bill of Rights insisted upon by a number of the parties prior to agreeing to ratify the initial document.  The states were not willing to give any government a “blank check” in terms of power or authority.  Thus, Jefferson’s statement about “binding them down with the chains of a constitution” serves as testimony.

In the future when someone refers to “We the People”, politely remind them of the additional 4 words that actually established in the beginning a federal system instead of a national one.

That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright 2013 Hillard W. Welch

Read the fine print . . .

In almost every agreement or contract you can find “small print”.  That’s where they bury the important exceptions or potential modifications to the document that catches the unsuspecting or trusting party.  While there is nothing illegal about the procedure, it is not only annoying, but upsetting to say the least, particularly when some provision it contained turns out to be against what you had understood or thought you were accepting.

That said, one of the major pluses in the writing of the Constitution is that there are no “fine print” parts.  Yet, there are situations contained in the document that might well fall into that category simply because they can be so easily overlooked or disregarded.

For example, “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . . ”  (Art. I, Sec. 10).  How many readers are aware of that requirement?  And, how many states are complying with this mandate?  Recognizing that the physical handling of large quantities or gold or silver in whatever form became a burden, the government began the process of printing “certificates” (Gold and Silver Certificates) that were acknowledged and accepted as representing the specific amount of the metal as noted on the face thereof.    

The practice of exchanging such “paper certificates” became widespread until the Federal Reserve was created and began the slow and quiet practice of “modifying” the certificates, eliminating any reference to gold or silver!  Thus the expression “not worth the paper it’s printed on” began to define the Federal Reserve Notes as they are now called.  The “fine print” worked its way while the public was otherwise occupied.

Another example, “The Senators and Representatives . . . and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . .”  Today we have some people openly advocating abandoning the Constitution as the controlling document for our government.   

Rep. Henry Hyde is quoted as telling Rep. Ron Paul in response to Paul’s resolution requesting a formal declaration of war following 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time.  Declaration of war is one of them . . . Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”  Was the oath a “fine print” area to be ignored at will?  Can the President declare war whenever he feels like it?  Such disregard of a sworn oath as well as ignoring the Constitution surely indicates some “fine print” may have been missed in the beginning!

Perhaps the most egregious example of “fine print” that truly affects everyone, is to be found in a document of some 4 million plus words.  It has been said that no one person fully understands

or comprehends it.  Yet it is involved in everyone’s life every day and requires compliance with its dictates regardless of who you are or what business or profession you have.  It can fine you and even imprison you if you fail to respect its regulations or to provide what it demands.  And, it is all perfectly constitutional since it is the result of an amendment.  In case you haven’t already guessed, the “fine print” is that of the Internal Revenue Service (Amendment XVI ratified in 1913).  Until that time, the federal government “lived within its means” and without the “fine print” of the IRS.

We should read the “fine print” always!  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©2013 Hillard W. Welch

More on – Is it constitutional?

Have you ever stopped to think about the monies that the federal government “gives” to the states and municipalities?  Where does the federal government get the money in the first place?  And, finally, have you ever thought about the fact that federal government monies are disbursed with restrictions attached?

Put that all together, and you realize that it was your money the federal government took in the first place through taxes, fees and other means and which they are now “giving back” to you in the form of a subsidy or some other euphemistic term to conceal the real purpose.  In short, all such government monies are disbursed with directions to the recipient as to how they should be employed.  Yet, it was your money to begin with.  And now, they are “giving” back some portion of it with rules on how to spend it, having taken a cut along the way.

The federal government is “bribing you with your own money” to do what they, the politicians want.  And, there is no clause or section of the Constitution or its Amendments that authorizes such action on the part of the federal government.  Coercing the states to do the politicians’ bidding was fortified by the idea, “if you don’t [do as we request], we will.”  That is simply semantic legerdemain!

In fact, truth be known, it is a direct violation of the federal concept of government.  The federal government has, according to the Constitution, certain defined limits of activity and involvement.  All else is left to the states, each of which was considered in the beginning to be sovereign in its own right.  While a state’s areas of involvement and governance were not defined, they must not encroach on those few which were specifically relegated to the federal government.

Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) allegedly commented, “if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit an action, then I can do it”.  (See IXth and Xth Amendements which reserve to the states and/or the people all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.) This on the very face of it is an absolute attempt to avoid the restraints enacted by the Founding Fathers in establishing the Constitution.  Inserting words that do not exist does not justify the action contingent thereon.  Even before Theodore Roosevelt “bent” or “distorted” the original meaning, we encountered such a situation with Thomas Jefferson and the excerpt from his letter concerning the “wall of separation” between church and state.  Neither of these attempts at “stretching” the Constitution can be justified when the actual wording of the document is considered.

One need only remember that the Founding Fathers did not create a document to favor any individual, group, caste or association.  Whether you agree or disagree, you must accept the fact that they dealt as much as possible with what would be considered “basic principles” in much the same way that “gravity” is a basic principle.  That is why they sought to limit the federal government to specific, defined areas of responsibility and accountability.  Each of the three branches was expected to abide by such restrictions or directions as the Constitution delineated.  No more, no less!

Ever since the beginning of the 20^th century we have witnessed a progressive onslaught to undermine and change the meaning, purpose and activities of the federal government.  Such distortions have transformed us into a country in which the people are servants of the government, not the government the servant of the people.

And that is why it is even more important today to always ask your government officials, “is it Constitutional”?

Think about it.  That’s my view.  What’s yours?   

Reach me at constitutionviews@ gmail.com  ©Copyright 2012.  Hillard W. Welch