Who Would Overthrow our Government?
I find it ironic that the the people are so concerned about this group in northern Michigan, and some surrounding states bent on overthrowing the American government. Not that they shouldn’t be concerned about it; not that they shouldn’t arrest the suckers and prosecute them.
But what I find ironic is that very famous, very public people are also trying to overthrow our government but nobody says anything about it. What’s the big surprise?
Consider the move by Franklin Roosevelt, the mama’s boy who had to be constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court in his attempt to overthrow the U.S. government.
This may come as a surprise to you, but it was the Supreme Court which stated that the Roosevelt regime was attempting to take over the constitutional authority of the Congress. This was only a very public attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.
The court further said that even if the Congress was willing to go along with the unconstitutional plan and wanted the Executive branch to take over these duties, they could not constitutionally do it. The Constitution forbids one branch of our government to abdicate their power to a different branch – even if they want to. The question of our time is whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States still has the courage to protect the Constitution for us during this present Democrat Party assault against it. If they don’t, then we will have to revisit our government and make the changes we require. It is our government; not theirs. We must not let them take it away from us.
A Closer Look at Attempts to Overthrow American Constituted Government
Democrat politicians including Mr. Obama have conspired to use the powers of the government through the Internal Revenue Service to force you to purchase a service from a private company. If you fail to do it, they will know about it because they also force you to tell them the last details of your private financial income and expenses because of the income tax system they have implemented. They have the power to take money from your bank or Credit Union without your permission and without notice. They have the power to seize your property, your real estate your boat – anything – without warning and sell it. Then when you can no longer provide for your children, then can take them too. Should you seek to hide from them by using cash – living off the grid so to speak – if they find you, you will be sent to jail.
A number of states and other organizations are filing suits in federal courts in order to overturn all or parts of this unconstitutional monstrosity. Mr. Obama and his regime will count on the Supreme Court to declare that the U.S. Constitution permits the Congress to institute these provisions because of the “Commerce Clause.”
What is the Commerce Clause?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” That’s it.
During colonial times prior to the U.S. Constitution, some colonies would exact huge taxes on goods shipped through their territory as a means of raising money. As an example, tobacco grown in Virginia going to Massachusetts would have to pass through Pennsylvania or New Jersey, and then New York. These colonies could charge whatever taxes they wanted on the commerce being moved through their territory. This created disunity among the colonies, and if we were to have a union, this problem had to be resolved in the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution wrote the “Commerce Clause” in order to stop the practice.
Almost universally for the first 156 years of our Republic these words in the Constitution were used exclusively to solve the problem they were written to address. Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson routinely tried to overthrow the federalist system outlined in the Constitution, but the federal courts denied them the power they wanted. But the Great Depression gave Franklin Roosevelt the opportunity to begin the overthrow of our Constitution. Remember the immortal words of that great philosopher Rahm Emmanuel, “You never want to waste a crisis.” Especially if it will help you overthrow constituted government.
Enter Franklin Roosevelt, Progressive
During the early years of his presidency, Roosevelt and his allies in the Congress passed a dizzying number of laws that sucked power away from the people and the states to the federal government. Which our Constitution was written to prevent. Many of these were challenged in the federal courts, and most of the challenges were upheld by the Supreme Court declaring Roosevelt’s attempts as unconstitutional.
The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937
In the weeks following his re-election and taking office in January 1937 – out of sheer frustration with the Constitution and the Supreme Court seeking to uphold it – in February 1937 Roosevelt proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.
This legislation would give him the power to “pack the court” as it was referred to. Despising the members of the court upholding the Constitution and opposing its overthrow; and desiring to impose his own vision of federal power by subverting it, Roosevelt proposed that for every sitting Justice on the Supreme Court who was 70 ½ years old, he could appoint an additional Justice up to a maximum of 6 additional Justices which would make a total of 15 instead of 9. Everyone knew why he wanted to do this – he wanted to create an imperial presidency;he wanted the power to implement the laws he wanted regardless of whether or not they were constitutional. He wanted to make himself a ruler rather than a temporary administrator complying with limitations imposed by the Constitution. He wanted a Supreme Court that was actually part of the Executive Branch – a group of “yes” men who would help him dismantle the U.S. Constitution by rubber-stamping his power grab.
Almost immediately following his death a move was begun to amend the Constitution to prevent any other person from grabbing the power Roosevelt had. On February 22, 1951 the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the people of the United States limiting any one person from being elected President for more than two terms; Roosevelt was elected 4 times. He will live in as much infamy as the the assault on Pearl Harbor which he, himself said would live in infamy. He did much more to destroy the constituted government of the United States than did Imperial Japan. What an awful man he was.
West Coast Hotels Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Congress proposed the legislation but was wary about the outcome. While the legislation was struggling in Congress, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of West Coast Hotels Co. v. Parrish in March of 1937. In this case, Justice Owen Roberts who had consistently ruled in favor of the Constitution and against Roosevelt reversed his previous positions and gave the federal government the power to rule in cases of state minimum wage laws. This power is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but the “Commerce Clause,” they said, gives them the power. The reasoning of the court was that the restriction of liberty of contract by state law is a legitimate function of government if the government is only trying to protect someone’s health, and, they said, minimum wage laws protect a person’s health. Note: if your motives are compassionate, restricting freedom is no problem. (Nose thumb at the Constitution.)
Everyone knew that the Justices were afraid of Roosevelt and the Progressives in Congress and their attempt to pack the court. Everyone also knew that Justice Roberts had gotten cold feet, backed down, and participated in opening the door to the end of the federalism the Framers had created in the U.S. Constitution. So his change of heart was “the switch in time that saved nine.”
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)
The next domino to fall undermining the Constitution was NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937). The Justices ruled that the federal government (through the newly created National Labor Relations Board) had the power to regulate all activities between business and labor unions throughout the United States because of the “Commerce Clause.”
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
Then Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 decided that the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 – which among other things set quotas on wheat production – was Constitutional. Now, the Executive Branch of the federal government could decide who much wheat you could grow in your own land. Complements of the “Commerce Clause.”
The Agriculture Adjustment Act was designed to keep wheat prices artificially high even during a time when people in the U.S. were on the verge of starvation, visiting soup kitchens by the millions, and hitching rides on trains around the country to try to find work. Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard was charged with carrying out this abomination, and fined a farmer by the name of Filburn. Farmer Filburn grew wheat, and was permitted by his masters in Washington D.C. to sell some of it under this legislation.
Filburn complied with the amount of wheat he was permitted by Roosevelt to sell, but he grew some extra wheat he did not sell – he used it to feed his chickens, he didn’t sell any of it. For this, the federal government issued him a fine for violating a federal regulation made up in the Roosevelt White House.
He refused to pay the fine, and the case eventually got to the Supreme Court which ruled that not only does the federal government have the power to control the amount of wheat you can sell; it also has the power to control how much you grow for your personal use! Here’s how distorted the thinking was. They ruled that if Filburn grew wheat for his personal use, it violated the Commerce Clause because that might mean he wouldn’t need to buy wheat to feed his chickens from someone else who might have grown it in another state! By not purchasing wheat from someone else for his chickens, Filburn violated federal control on interstate commerce. By growing his own wheat for his own personal use, he violated the dictates of the President! Pay the fine.
A Few Other Observations about how the Courts Interpret the “Commerce Clause”
The federal government spends $billions of your tax dollars to keep the prices of cotton, wheat, peanuts, sugar, milk, soy beans, corn, rice, and about 15 more artificially high. So your taxes provide corporate farmers money to keep the price of all these commodities higher than they would be if there were a free market. You pay taxes to keep the price of milk high, and then you are taxed to pay to subsidize milk for schoolchildren because the price is too high! I’m not joking. All this is accomplished through the “Commerce Clause.” Progressives call this “progress.” Some of you vote for people like this.
To further irritate you, I point out that a recent Washington Post investigation discovered 75 acres of Texas farmland that had been converted into a housing development. Today, the homeowners on these properties (which are worth well over $300,000 each) are eligible for fixed payments for the lawn in their backyards because of its “historical rice production.“ Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks. They’re still coming.
Besides this, we have about 40 million acres of cropland for which the owners are paid to not grow crops in order to keep the prices high. “Commerce Clause” as implemented and interpreted by liberals and Progressives. See here.
Other Things Our Government Masters Control Because They Define Them as “Interstate Commerce”
Today, the federal government controls the racial complement of school classrooms, property taxes for racial balancing of public schools – without representation, racial hiring quotas, affirmative action, federal crimes not listed in the Constitution, the FBI, information required on restaurant menus everywhere, all tobacco products, what you can do with your own land through the “Endangered Species Act,” ( including many species which reside in only a small plot in one state – Delhi Sand fly, Delta Smelt, toads, worms, and more; mud puddles on your own land through Wetlands, Clean Water Act, Navigable Waterways legislation) automobile gas mileage, turn signals and endless other accessories on your car, the breath you exhale…All of this and much more has been permitted by the Supreme Court through the “Commerce Clause” which I remind you says, “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
However noble, however compassionate the motives of those who enact and support such travesties; to define these issues as impacting interstate commerce is a travesty. If some of these things need to be done, let us find a better; a legal, a constitutional way. Otherwise, we will have permitted our own Congress and federal courts to destroy our document – the people’s document; our declaration on the limitations of governmental power – the U.S. Constitution. If they want to change it, let them follow the Constitution on how changes are to be made.
Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995)
The Leslie Salt Company dug shallow ponds on their own property permitting sea water to flood in filling the ponds. The company would then let the water evaporate leaving the salt from the ocean which they could then harvest, purify, and sell. A suit was filed and finally Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995) was decided by the Supreme Court.
In spite of the fact that it was their own property, and in spite of the fact that they were not altering existing ponds in any way, the Supreme Court determined that before the water might evaporate, it’s possible that migratory birds could land on the water thus making these ponds subject to federal jurisdiction because these birds constitute interstate commerce under the “Commerce Clause!” There was no ‘commerce’ related to the birds because it was not a vacation spot, no one came to see them; the ponds were not involved in any way with the birds’ ability to fly from one state to another because they were recently created; and there was no evidence that the birds actually stopped briefly at the ponds. No matter, it’s just another power grab on the part of the federal government. The “Commerce Clause” has become an excuse for the federal government to overturn constituted government in the United States with the willing complicity of the Supreme Court. The’ migratory bird’ gambit has been used over and over to protect mud puddles and shut down otherwise permitted uses of private property.
Planning to Completely Overthrow Constituted Government
Despite the aggregate damage to our Constitution so far, now the Obama regime would have us go even further to create an imperial presidency by creating legislation that would command you to make a purchase from a private company solely because you are a citizen of the United States. Because they think you should do it. Through the “Commerce Clause” of course they get to control the price you can be charged for this service. Wow, the price of citizenship has gone up. This gang of Progressives wants illegal aliens and felons to vote, but want you to pay a fine if you refuse to spend your money the way they want you to.
Do you actually think the U.S. Constitution permits the government to force you to purchase what some bureaucrat deems to be a public good from a private company? Do you? Are you really willing accept what they are trying to do with your country? I don’t have time here to deal with it, but the Constitution itself denies all of these powers to the federal government be declaring itself to be a document of enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8; all other powers belong to the states or to the people themselves. Amendment 10 – part of our Bill of Rights says, ”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.”
The federal government exercises powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution all the time. I really hate to sound like a radical, but where in the Constitution does it say Social Security would be constitutional? Where is that enumeration about giving tax dollars for education purposes? Where in the list of enumerated powers does it say the government can pay for your health care? None of this is constitutional. If we need to do it, let’s find a way to do it without overthrowing the people’s government.
If the Constitution is not a document of enumerated powers, it is a document of unenumerated powers. Either it has the limitation of the powers granted to it in the Constitution or it has no limitation on its power at all. Remember why there is a United States of America: to create a government of limited powers so the people can thrive. Do you really want the United States federal government to be able to do whatever they want to do? Seriously?
By the Democrat Party Interpretation of the Constitution the Following Could Become Reality:
What if a future Administration and another Congress decide that you need to be required to purchase a certain kind of food only available at stores regulated and approved by the federal government? What if you didn’t want to buy it or eat it? By the logic of the current regime in Washington and their supporters, you would be forced to do it. There is no difference whatsoever between forcing you to purchase health care or forcing you to purchase a certain kind of food. In fact, they go together.
Since the government is taking over your state of health and paying for it, they get to determine what constitutes health, and which foods hurt your health and which help it. No doubt Mr. Obama will have us purchasing government subsidized arugula from Whole Foods in the near future because it’s good for your health.
What if another administration and another congress decide that you need to be required to purchase a bicycle for transportation because they control carbon dioxide and don’t want you driving your car anymore? (With subsidize public transportation; you won’t need it anyway.) What if the government controls the construction and safety of bicycles? They do, of course. What if the government had a controlling interest in one of the major bicycle manufactures and wanted you to purchase their bikes? Would you buy one? What if you didn’t buy it, but the government took the price of it out of your tax return? Would you then be celebrating Mr. Obama? By the logic of the current regime, you will learn to like the health care bill once you understand what’s in it. Ditto for the new bicycle and health food bill.
What if a future Regime in the U.S. determines that certain races of people are more prone to costly diseases than others because of inherited genetic issues? What if they determine that the restriction of liberty is a legitimate government enterprise if the motive is to improve health, and that not treating these people is in the public interest? Would you then support the principles espoused by Mr. Obama? Would you then want the Supreme Court to continue the dismantling of constituted government in the U.S? Would you then be silent about what is happening during your lifetime? What if a future government determined that gay people cost more to treat medically than heterosexual people and therefore the restriction of liberty is a legitimate government enterprise if the motive is to improve health and refuses to treat them? Would you sit by and let that happen?
If the Supreme Court permits the government to force you to purchase one commodity or service, they can force you to purchase anything they choose. Anything. Think about it.
Many utopian, ideological Progressives; along with people who went to public schools for too many years, and those who are disappointed with their present state of affairs are vulnerable to the slick promises of those who would be their masters. They are subjected to the smooth, slick propaganda of the mountebanks in Washington D.C., and end up supporting ideas and programs that will impoverish their lives, and stifle their freedom. Like Esau, they are willing to sell their Constitutional birthright of freedom and opportunity for the short term benefit of a bowl of lentil soup. It is our task to talk them out of it.
If you think the Democrat Party including Mr. Obama are not trying to overturn the Constitution by redefining what it means and making it the antithesis of what it clearly states, please make a coherent comment on this post. Declaring through legislation that 2 plus 2 equals 7; or 19, or whatever they decide it should be does not mean that they have changed the laws of mathematics. Nor does their declaration that the Constitution gives the federal government powers that the Constitution clearly does not give the federal government mean that it suddenly has those powers.
Mr. Obama and the Democrat party are engaged in an open attempt to overthrow the constituted government of the United States. It’s tough to hear it stated in such a way, but I think I have made my case. The charge will be denied, of course. I will be labeled as inconsequential and uninformed; but my thesis is true. The attempt to overthrow our constituted government legitimated by the Constitution on the part of the Democrat Party by means of creating unlawful legislation is no less illegal and immoral than those who would try to overthrow our government by other means. A pox on both their houses. Let’s prosecute anyone who would attempt it regardless of their motive, position, status, or means of operation.
So What do we do About this Attempt to Overthrow Constituted Government in the United States?
- We must support those states which are mounting a defense of the U.S. Constitution against the Congressional attempt to overthrow it.
- We must raise the level of communication from those of us who love our country and those in the Congress who would overthrow it.
- We must always keep our communication appropriate.
- We must support and elect only people of whatever political party that we are absolutely certain want to retain the historic limitations placed on federal government by the Constitution as it is legally amended.
- We must make clear our position, and make clear to them that we expect them to follow the Constitution and not subvert it.
- We must be articulate and not make any statements that can be used against us. If we give them any reason, they will find fault with the messenger and pretend that there was no message.
- We must not lose heart; we will reap in due time if we don’t faint.
- We must stay winsome.
- We must not make false accusations against those who are engaged in overturning constituted government – the truth itself is bad enough.
- We must not be confused by slick, pedantic, side-stepping rhetoric from those who want to divert us from our task of saving the Union.
- We must realize that taking the country the framers gave us back will take years.
- We must cut through the “newspeak,” think critically and make coherent arguments.
“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.” 1984
Let Mr. Obama make idiotic statements about there not being any earthquakes the day after the legislation was passed; no asteroids destroying the earth… I don’t think Mr. Obama is any towering intellect, but I think he is smart enough to know what we are talking about when we say this is the end of legally constituted government in America – he only wants to belittle people who disagree with him. Nasty sarcasm shrinks Mr. Obama to a 25 inch inseam, and he knows better. It’s just his well hidden anger leaking out when he goes off the teleprompter.
Subscribe By Email
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009