Limits of Government

As with anything, I feel there should be limits to government. The American Revolution was spurred in part by the desire to limit the power of the British government to tax American colonists. Americans have long believed that government serves its citizens, not the other way around. To ensure that citizens are the masters of government, not its slaves, we recognize the need to place limits on government from time to time, to protect ourselves from an overzealous government. Some of the states, through Legislatures or citizen initiatives, have adopted limits on the government's power to tax and spend, and on the number of terms elected officials may serve.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." . This is probably the most ignored part of the entire Constitution.  The meaning has been lost to many currently in power, yet is so simple; the federal government only has the power it is specifically given in the Constitution.  Unless the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do something, it doesn’t have that power.  This system was set up by the founders precisely to give autonomy to the state and local governments, with minimal power to the federal government.  The federal government serves an important purpose, and that’s why powers are delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  However, the power that was delegated to the federal government was minimal.  Current politicians have chosen to completely ignore this amendment, and give a completely illiterate reading of the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution.

In order to say that government can be good is to understand that in order for this to work; government must help their people in a positive way by helping with certain tasks and stay away from other tasks. Government’s task was set to standards by administering judgment according to standards of justice. When government starts having more political power, it has made people very uncomfortable knowing that it can change the course of state government. In our current administration many feel that it is taking on way to many issues, and big issues at that.

As a further safeguard for the people's rights, The Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution provided for division of powers not only between the Federal and State governments but also within the Federal government between its three, separate Branches and, further, specified various checks and balances among these Branches, to help prevent either usurpation of power (grasping unauthorized power) or misuse of the limited quantity of power granted to it by the people: as explained, for instance, by Madison in The Federalist number 51.

Each of the Branches was designed to help restrain the other Branches from any violation of the Constitution.

As we look at Locke’s perspective on The Second Treatise of Government, Locke saw this legislative government the most important. The limits to the power of the legislature include the following: the legislation must govern by fixed "promulgated established laws" that apply equally to everyone; these laws must be designed solely for the good of the people; and the legislative must not raise taxes on the property of the people without the people's consent. As we see, Locke had faith in human rationality, but he was also knowledgeable enough to know about people's natural appetites. If a legislative is put in the position where it can legislate for its own benefit, Locke believes that it may well succumb to that temptation.

It has been always been the thought of our founding fathers, that there was one main reason to keep government in check. As we look at our Constitution, we realize again that they may not have had a crystal ball to see the future, but they had the good morals and principals to see human nature. The federal government, of course, does not at present respect its constitutional limits. The chief culprit, in this regard, is the massive social legislation and regulatory apparatus enacted under Congress’s constitutional authority as Article 1, Section 8, Clause states, “to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states” .

That clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, has been the source of constitutional authority for the great expansion of federal control over health, morals, education, crime, labor, environmental conditions, and retirement and unemployment insurance programs. Does this seem to you why the Constitution was written for? To keep the government from going overboard on everything they touch? I believe it was. I look at all they have gotten involved with and there seems to be many areas they should have stayed out of. Limited constitutional government results from an understanding that the ends of government are limited, and so must be the power and scope of government. The ends of government must be rooted in something fixed outside human will and desire.

For Abraham Lincoln no less than the Founders, the purposes of government are derived from unchanging human nature, namely the protection of individual natural rights. Unlimited government, on the other hand, results when the infinite number of human desires, from jobs with vacations, to free medicine, to abortions-on-demand, to after school programs for kids, are treated as the ends of government. The only kind of government that can deliver an infinite number of things is a government of unlimited power and scope. This has been the goal of modern liberalism and socialism in America for the past century.

These examples are just some of the reasons I feel limited government is the only answer.

The Chinese Communist Party is an evil cult

 After 12 years of murder,persecution and world wide slander by the Chinese communist regime it is quite clear that Falun Gong is accepted, practised and admired all around the world. It is also clear that they will never defeat the universal principles of Truthfulness Compassion and Forbearance.

The facts remain that Falun Gong is not a religion or a cult. We are all about freedom of mind and heart. We have no registration so no list of practitioners, There are no fees, everything is taught for free and is voluntarily and we can come and go as we please.

Yet the Chinese communist regime is the biggest cult in the world today. Below is a list of their traits in comparison to the existing religions today.

Read The Nine Commentaries which will help all Chinese young and old to remember the real China before communism . These commentaries reveal to westerners just who is the real dangerous cult of today  - the Chinese communist regime.

So far after reading the Nine Commentaries nearly 100 million Chinese in China and over seas have turned their back and withdrawn from the CCP cult.

The Evil Religious Traits of the CCP.

	The Basic Forms of a Religion	The Corresponding Forms of the CCP
1	Church or platform (podium)	All levels of the Party committee; the platform ranges from Party meetings to all media controlled by the CCP
2	Doctrines	Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong's Ideology, Deng Xiaoping's Theory, Jiang Zemin's "Three Represents", and Party Constitution
3	Initiation rites	Ceremony in which oaths are taken to be loyal to the CCP forever
4	Commitment to one religion	A member may only believe in the communist party
5	Priests	Party Secretaries and staff in charge of party affairs on all levels
6	Worshiping God	Slandering all Gods, and then establishing itself as an unnamed "God"
7	Death is called "ascending to heaven or descending to hell"	Death is called "going to see Marx"
8	Scriptures	The theory and writings of the Communist Party leaders
9	Preaching	All sorts of meetings; leaders' speeches
10	Chanting scriptures; study or cross-examination of scriptures	Political studies; routine group meetings or activities for the Party members
11	Hymn (religious songs)	Songs to eulogize the Party
12	Donations	Compulsory membership fees; mandatory allocation of governmental budget, which is money from people's sweat and blood, for the Party's use
13	Disciplinary punishment	Party disciplines ranging from "house arrest and investigation" and "expulsion from the Party" to deadly tortures and even punishments of relatives and friends

Philosophy of Originalism and Constitutional Interpretation

Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself.

Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented. Originalism is a family of theories, principally. The original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. Original meaning is the dominant form of the legal theory of originalism today. It contends that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified.

Constitutional interpretation is problematic because it can be difficult to distinguish legitimate interpretation from illegitimate change. The distinction depends largely on what a constitution is. A constitution, like any other law, necessarily has a meaning, which pre-exists judicial interpretation: it is not a set of meaningless marks on paper. Any plausible constitutional theory must offer an account of the nature of that meaning. In doing so, it must address two main questions. The first is whether the meaning of the constitution is given solely by its words, or also by additional evidence of underlying intentions, purposes or values. The second question is whether, in either case, its meaning is determined by the original meanings, intentions, purposes or values of the founding generation, or by contemporary meanings, intentions, purposes or values.

I, myself, stand with the originalism of the constitution. Reason being is this; the Constitution was built on the fibers of moral truths. If we believe that the Constitution should be changed to meet the needs now, wouldn’t it go against the grain of what the founding fathers wrote? Non-orginalist allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions.  The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.

When looking at the opposing view, the non-orginalist view, I look at how it could potentially disrupt how we see justice. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.

I feel that when there is too much government dictating what we need to live under, mixes for some serious repercussions. The Constitution is the rulebook for the government , which is why it was written to start with.
Our founding fathers knew that people generally can be corrupt, and people in power have more say in situations that can be life alternating, and therefore, the founding fathers decided to make sure their powers were confined . Now, when looking at the situation in today’s world, we see how the federal government wants to run the health care industry. We hear from people how great this will be, in reality this will be the worst case scenario. It is stated that the federal government has no authority to run the health care industry, welfare, unemployed and so on. I would go into the rest of the issues the federal government is not supposed to be running, but it’s all in the reading.

As we see how the government can easily abandon our Constitutional Protections, we see how easily it can truly affect us not only as citizens, but our rights to what our forefathers had seen. I had to enjoy the reading on the part of income tax.  Moore stated, “The income tax, however, soon became a cash cow for a Congress needing only the feeblest of excuses to spend money.” Again, I feel I do not need to elaborate on this situation. I feel we are going to get a point of being taxed to death or break the government, if they, the Congress don’t stop, the feeling in the air could be another revolution. The only way they can levy any kind of taxes or create any kind agency, is through a Constitutional amendment, which has to be ratified through the states. This is the only legal way to accomplish this, by way of the Constitution and how it was drawn up. 

When I read how the government uses crises to expand their domain, it made sense to me. In every crisis, there was a cry for more money and yet, when the crisis was over the money still had to be paid out. Benjamin Franklin had the right thought when asked about if the Constitution would survive. He stated, “Everything appears to promise it will last. But, in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”.

As we read the issues pertaining to the Constitution, I have to go back on what I originally had stated how the Constitution was founded on Christianity principals. We can go back as far as the basic law of man, the Ten Commandments. With these principals, the Constitution was adapted. People have changed it to their ill got and gains, does that make the principal of good, wrong? I guess it depends on who wants to change the rules. These laws are placed in federal buildings here in the good ole U.S.A. So, I ask, if we are a nation built on these principals and laws, why is the Constitution being questioned today?

Obama CIA Director Panetta Was Pro-Soviet-Union Activist

Story here.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to serve as secretary of defense, keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.

Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."

This shocking revelation is but the tip of the iceberg of appalling folks and realities in the Obama Administration.

Obama Shows Dictatorial Nature

Story here.

President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Apparently, the supposed "President", Barack Hussein Obama, refuses to take expert legal, constitutional advice and is hellbent on doing whatever he pleases.

Or is he really just following orders to do whatever his puppetmasters tell him?