I feel, in life, a little like Rip Van Winkle. I have a hard time understanding how so many Americans seem not to understand the system of government that they live under in this country. A brief explanation.
The united States of America is a federal constitutional republic.
* A federal form of government is one wherein there are sovereign individual states united to a central government, with each of those categories of sovereign entity having certain powers and responsibilities. This is as opposed simply to a centralized form of government, wherein all powers reside in the central government; controlled by law, or not.
* A constitutional form of government is a government ruled by the rule of law, codified in a constitutional contract. In a federal constitutional form of government, that contract is between the individual, sovereign states and the central government.
* A republic is a form of government wherein the people elect representatives to - as the name implies - represent them in the governing councils.
Now, specifically as to the U.S. form of government:
Each State rules by a constitution, i.e, the law is codified in a constitutional contract between the citizens of that State and the State government. In addition, there is the central Constitution, spelling out various powers, rights, and responsibilities, of the federal/central government and of the States. The federal government is one of enumerated powers. Limited, and delegated - by the States. "Few and defined" powers, in the rather authoritative words of the man known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. So, there are matters of governance that rightly - i.e., by law; the law of the land; the Constitution - fall under the aegis of the federal government, and, the bulk of powers resides in/remains in the several States; as clarified, and codified - to be beyond question - by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The first ten of which are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Which was added on to the Constitution that came out of the Constitutional Convention itself in the ratification process by the several states at the time, to further tie down the new central government from potential mischief.
Some statesmen of the day argued that such a Bill of Rights was actually dangerous, in that it might tend to lead to the assumption by some - over time; intentionally or unintentionally - that the federal government could do anything it wanted
outside of those specific, enumerated rights and powers; which are, after all, only
examples of various rights and powers reserved to the states. in the constitutional contract There is some merit to that concern. As we have seen, in our day.
In our day; wherein so many of the citizenry seem not to understood these fundamental principles of governance in this country. Somehow, the notion has arisen that the federal government can do almost anything it wants to. Or, specifically, the executive can.
A word to that aspect of the American form of government Our form of government is a tripartite form of government, i.e., it is made up of three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. This was done - cautiously; very intentionally - in order to creates what is called 'checks and balances' - each branch to be a check on the others, in case any branch of the government began to go off the rails, and assume greater powers than they have been
specifically assigned -
delegated - by the Constitution.
But what happens if more than one of the branches starts going off said constitutional rails, and throws the whole form of government terribly out of whack? Or if all
three gang up on 'the States, or the people'??
They may need to be whacked back into place
by 'the States, or' The People - i.e., the citizenry of the Republic.
And that is where we seem to be today, with
all three of the branches terribly out of kilter, in relation to their proper, i.e., constitutional, powers and roles.
A word to that factor. One would assume that 'the law' would be most strenuously upheld by the judicial branch. After all, that is their job: to 'judge' - adjudicate - issues
in relation to the Constitution.
Not simply in relation to the individual judge's personal socio-econo-political proclivities.
But that is precisely what seems to have occurred in this nation: judges ruling simply from that perspective.
Now, perhaps we should cut our judges a little slack in this matter. After all, they didn't necessarily
personally make of the Constitution a wet noodle; merely "a damn piece of paper," as it has reportedly been alluded to, by one occupant of high office. Of very high office. No; there seems to have been a concerted educational effort, for many years now, to make the Constitution what is called, by these pernicious people, 'a living document'. Subject to the whim and will of the judges, in 'interpreting' the law,
ostensibly in relation to the (original intent of the) Constitution, or case law, but really, merely in relation to their own personal proclivities.* So it's not entirely
their fault, if sometimes, individual judges rule that blue is green, and black is white, and......you get the idea.
In sum.
I don't recognize the nation that I helped found. Even with the amendments to the original Constitution that have 'come to pass' over the intervening years. Some not properly ratified, not so incidentally.
But anyway: first things first. Setting things to rights: We need to get back to the contract/under the rule of law. And then we'll see where we go from there.
In short:
You people are living in an Alice in Wonderland fairy tale.
You need to get out of it.
And fast.
And that is my Lesson for
The Day.
--
* As, for example, in a recent case where a judge decided to 'interpret' the law to mean that non-citizens could vote in this country's elections - and no state could legally check their identity
anyway; that the voters can't even be asked to identify themselves, in her reckoning of the law.
As John McEnroe was wont to say: You've GOT to be kidding.
---
A sub-lesson:
from thecommonsenseshow.com: ‘A Mentally Ill Nation Cannot Survive and It’s Official, America is the Sickest Nation in the Modern World’ - Dave Hodges = June 5
(Hodges relates our atrocious condition to a lack of moral resilience. There is another correlation to consider…)
..
Stan June 5, 2016 at 8:33 pm
To echo a perspective touched on above: A depression/mental illness graph correlates with poor nutrition, esp. a deficiency in the B vitamins and magnesium. Brewer’s yeast, wheat germ, dark green leafy veggies, seeds, nuts: the list goes on for natural sources. But there are a number of deficiency conditions – widespread in our modern junk-food diet – that can lead to depression as a symptom. A good naturopath could straighten out a lot of people.
During WWII, people in Holland became noticeably healthier than before. The reason? They were reduced to whole, natural foods. We need to wake up – from our manufactured slumber. Manufactured, by our erstwhile masters, who know precisely what they are doing, in getting us hooked on drugs and junk food.
--
Diet covers most ill-health conditions that Big Pharma has come up with drugs to treat We really need to stop listening to our allopathic medical professionals (the medical-pharmaceutical complex; also the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex) on how to take care of ourselves. They are leading us into the abyss.
More on this terribly important subject perhaps another time. In the meantime: Start educating yourselves. Go to holistic medical doctors' sites (Dr Joseph Mercola; Dr. Mike Adams; Dr. Russell L. Blaylock; there are more), and check out their archives on conditions that you are interested in advice on. Find a good naturopath or holistic doctor in your area. Take responsibility for yourself, and your family.
It's revolution time. On many fronts, of life in the 21st century.
