Fwd: Consitution 101

Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2020 2:13 pm

Subject: Consitution 101

 

What  does our federal Constitution authorize the  government to do?

Calling it an "emergency" or "necessary" doesn't make it constitutional.

The Constitution states what the federal government can do, the first nine amendments say what it can NOT do  and the Tenth Amendment states that if we didn't mention it, you can't do that either. 

The federal government does not have the authority to dictate health issues or education but  it states that only Congress can take us into war.  Just consider what we have been doing.  . 

We have three branches of government   (No Alexandria  Ocasio-Cortez,  it is not the House, the Senate and the White House.)   And they are not "equal."  Note how much space and power is allotted  to each in the Constitution.

 The House and  Senate  can  impeach and fire the president.  The Supreme Court members do not  serve for life – they serve at the pleasure of the Congress which can impeach and fire the Supreme Court members for a lack of "good behaviour " 

Because the federal government doesn't do something,  that doesn't mean that it won't get done. There is the state and local governments and the many civilian organizations, churches  and charities.

You can check on https://www.thenewamerican.com/freedom-index    to learn what your legislator's score is for abiding by the Constitution they swear to uphold.  Consider     65% would not be a good grade on your report  card. when you were in school     When legislators vote for a bill that is unconstitutional you can ask them  Where does the Constitution authorize this? (And NO  - "promote  the general welfare" is not the answer.  That is in the Preamble as a reason for having a constitution. 

It would only take a few good constitutionalists in the Congress to totally turn things around and restore the freedoms and tranquility that we once had and now crave.

This article by a  Patriot,  Bob  has good information on the history of our Constitution and what its real meaning is.   

The Young Americans Foundation recently reported that a group of Vanderbilt University professors recently claimed that the U.S. Constitution was "designed to perpetuate white supremacy," penalizing any student who disagreed on a class quiz.

The quiz, required in PSCI 1140: US ELECTIONS 2020, asked students to answer true or false to the question, "Was the Constitution designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery?" One student answered "false," and the question was marked wrong. It seems that these professors were not interested in teaching their students real Constitutional history but indoctrinating them with their opinions. 

If the professors would have bothered to spend some time conducting research, they would have found that the majority of the founders were antislavery. In fact George Mason, who was a Virginia Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, urged the delegates "As much as I value a union of all states, I would not admit the southern states into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of the disgraceful trade of slavery."

The overwhelming majority of the delegates did recognize that slavery was wrong, and wrote Article I, Section 9 into the Constitution. This allowed Congress to ban the importation of all slaves after "the year one thousand eight hundred and eight." The Convention believed that within twenty years, the southern states would be ready to relinquish slavery.

As Constitutional Scholar Matthew Spalding wrote in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "It is significant that the word slave and slavery are not used in the Constitution but the Framers used the word person rather than property. This would assure, as James Madison explained in Federalist Papers No. 54, that a slave would be regarded 'as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.' It was in this context of slave trade debate at the Constitutional Convention that Madison argued that it was "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.'" It must be pointed out that there were free blacks in the Northern states who voted to ratify the new constitution.      

Also, if these professors would have read the speeches of the ex-slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass, they would have concluded, as did Douglass, that the Constitution was not designed to "… perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery."

For example, in an 1852 in an address titled "The Constitution is a Glorious Liberty Document," Douglass stated that "The proper interpretation of the Constitution should always be construed toward freedom and natural rights." In a speech in 1860, Douglass stated that "The clauses in the Constitution that inferred slavery were conscious efforts to restrict and set the institution on the course of ultimate extinction." Later in that same speech he mentioned "Since the slaveholding states ratified the Constitution, this decision would be an implicit admission that slavery was NOT a Constitutional right."    

This blatant misinformation that is being peddled by these Marxist Socialists professors to more than 800 impressionable students is despicable. To attempt to boil down the country's greatest founding document as simply being white supremacist is a new low.  Marking any student wrong who dares to disagree is an outrage.