I post this as invite to those interested in Constitutional history and the state of our Empire today. I have written a semi-book on the time period from 1750 through the election 1800, and it does quite a job on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, alleging it to be a coup that made America a vassal state for Great Britain. I believe no one can understand or properly solve our present woes without a new Costitutional Convention and return to a state similar to the Articles of Confederacy form we had.
Please give it a read, post your comment and I will send you a piece which should shake any view of the loving , 'Founding Fathers' right to its foundation. e-mail at: wahkonta@graffiti.net. Blog On.
ARTICLE BEGINS
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:20:43 +1000
From: bill barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBirch] Let's Do Some Detective Work

Really Excellent Detective work - shows up a couple of Century's of
Double-Dealing........... Bill Barnett



>Let's Do Some Detective Work
>written by Dr. Walter E. Williams
>
>I'd like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of
>detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence.
>
>The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay,
>Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the thirteen states to
>ratify the Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James
>Madison wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
>Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the
>State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
>principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign
>commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be
>connected. 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 properties of the people; and the internal order,
>improvement, and prosperity of the State."
>
>If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers
>of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the
>states are few and defined, we'd describe today's America. Was Madison just
>plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our
>judgement, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed
>Americans.
>
>In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of
>Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither
>the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and
>humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In
>1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally
>ill saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public
>charity.", adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the
>letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole
>theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover
>Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of
>congressional spending bills during his two terms as President in the late
>1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an
>appropriation in the Constitution."
>
>Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything
>they can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: were the
>Founders, previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find
>constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses just plain stupid
>and ignorant? I don't believe in long run ignorance or stupidity so I
>re-read the Constitution looking to see whether an amendment had been
>passed authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines,
>prescription drugs, education, social security and thousands of similar
>items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.
>
>Being thorough I re-read the Constitution and found what Congress might
>interpret as a blank check authorization - the "general welfare clause".
>Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general
>welfare clause. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited
>powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically
>enumerated." The Constitution's father, James Madison said, "With respect
>to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as
>qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a
>literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution
>into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by
>its creators."
>
>My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first
>is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only
>constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring as well. The second is
>it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's
>today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution and any
>congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit
>would be tarred and feathered.
>
>Walter E. Williams
>c52-03
>December 8, 2003
>