Blueprint for a Golden Age Series
preempting memory of
the bad (9/11) with vision of the good
"The safest course is to
do nothing against one's conscience.
With this secret, we can enjoy life
and have no fear from death."
"To know what is right and not to do it
is the worst cowardice."
"Better to give your life, for
than save your life under virtually satanic
evil, war, death and hell on earth
and lose your soul habit of higher conscience."
world is a cosmic struggle for the soul of mankind
and that struggle is reaching a climax."
a careful division of power that prevents power
from becoming concentrated and unlimited.
"The rights of the people come from God.
The powers of government come from the people.
The American people delegated the specific powers they wanted
the federal government to have through the Constitution.
And any additional powers they wanted to grant
were supposed to be added by amendment.
"What is almost certainly bad
is a constant disposition
to thwart or disregard the Constitution.
[The problem today is...]
"The U.S. Constitution serves the same function as the British royal
it offers a comforting symbol of tradition and continuity, thereby masking
a radical change in the actual system of
"The commentary [on the
Constitution] has displaced the original
and 'We the People' has been supplanted by 'We the Lawyers.'
The Constitution's key to the balance of power in
government is the checks and balances between the Executive, Judicial and
Legislative branches of government... which is to say, checks and balances
between the "love
of power" (Executive branch) and the
power of love "of, by and for the people" (Legislative branch)
with the wisdom (discernment) to adjudicate the
difference (Judicial branch), knowing when to
delineate (divide) with power or
transcend boundaries (cohese) with love.
- Without "checks and
balances" via laws of a higher order, freedom leads to anarchy just as law and order
without freedom is the very definition of tyranny. The key factor is the "higher
order" that frames "Higher Power" at the
heart of God government... or by
default, the lower order that characterizes the dark side of the sinister
force will assert its love of power
at the expense of the power of love
- the Higher Power of Holy Spirit (LOVE-in-action)
at the interactive interface heart
of God government.
"Where love rules, there is
no will to power.
And where power predominates,
there love is
The one is the shadow of
- Carl Gustav Jung
Modern psychology of the
"higher mental" (Christic) nature follows the first laws affirming the
constitution of first principles framed by universal symbols that are the
quintessential "pure geometry" archetypes of meaning, value and purpose for
understanding the natural laws of the universe in regard to these "checks
and balances" framed by the LOVE Model:
Law of the
of the "O"),
AFFIRMATION... of the Spirit of the Law
Law of the Two-in-One (linear
consc. of the "L"),
CONFIRMATION... that one understands the Law
Law of the Three-in-One (synergized
trinity of the "V"),
DETERMINATION... the will for the Law-in-action
Law of the Four-in-One (integrated
wholEness of the "E"),
Law of the One has always
been the domain of true spirituality
at the heart of God government. At-one-ment
(atonement) focuses the worth-ship and value of one's attention on a
living God of divine Love, holy compassion, loving kindness, etc. that is
The centering and connecting to this frequency of holiness -
a golden ratio algorithm of the heart beat that occurs
when one is in this frequency - is the goal of spiritual meditation of
all who are on the path of evolutionary ascent. It is the "mountaintop
experience" of nirvana that characterizes the process of being
"born again". And
it is the correct role of media as would mediate our unity -- with divine
love -- amidst our diversity.
God government in any communications community
thus ordains divine order with divine love. It reflects and perfects the
"come into unity" with a living God of
at the heart of enlightened interactive communications. And it
defines and refines REAL community -- versus virtual or pseudo community --
by way of the holy spirit of LOVE-in-action
that raises the standard of conscience
at the heart
of the interactive LOVE-centric "TeLeComm
INTEGRATION... of all the above to fulfill the Law.
with a special LOVE"
is THE PROCESS
that involves and evolves our individual and collective consciousness of
the cosmic law and universal language of LOVE.
This is the golden rule/law language that governs the learning process,
creative process and healing process --
the processes of consciousness -- at
the archetypal foundation of "self/God government". It is this
that will define,
(synergize) our God-given gifts and talents so they will
shine at the heart of
the New "Next" Economy -- the economics of abundance -- based on abundant
Perversion of the Law of the One is the denial of
love - the sense of separation from a living God of Love - that creates
"evil" as an "energy
and thus rationalizes and justifies the suffering and "sin" of evil, fear,
terror and war... "that good may come of it." That's a deal with the
- the "deified
evil" that deifies BS
(Belief System) which calls evil "good" and endless war the "path to peace".
- This "
An individual or civilization can rise no higher
than its concept of "God is Love". The higher the concept of the
"CONSTITUTION" of divine law language at the heart of God government, the
greater the results. Conversely, the greater the betrayal of that truly
spiritual congruence as would mediate a living God of Love on Earth as in
heaven... the greater the rationalizations and justifications of "stinking
thinking" (paradigm paralysis) that replaces principle with pride and
inverts the win/win selflessness "of, by and for the people" for the "we
win/you lose" selfishness of a few who love power and the perks of prestige,
profit, pleasure and power to own and control the physical and human
resources of Earth.
evil is as much a duty
as is cooperation with good."
Faith in a living God of Love-in-action
is thus the "judgment" on the consciousness that has "fallen" to acceptance
of love's ignore-ance, denial and betrayal. This is the true meaning of
"Armageddon" -- the battle of light and darkness -- as Earth's evolutions
come-into-unity with the potential of instant-everywhere global village
communications via the Internet... yet deny the loving ONENESS potential
with endless fear-based division and warmongering... for lack of vision and
commitment of, by and for, a LOVE-centric
Perversion of the Law of "Two-in-One" (acceptance of
differences with love) is duality rather than polarity; division rather than
unity amidst diversity; divided and hanging separately rather than united
and hanging together. This perversion is what dominates all degenerate
social, political and economic orders. It's a win/lose social order rather
than win/win. It is the domain of organized greed and graft that follows
from the love of
power of a superrich power elite who would
undermine the power of love
in the mainstream masses... for power over them.
- "America's downfall
would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. It would
celebrate diversity over unity. It would stress differences rather than
similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating
each other, that is, when they are not killing each other."
BOTTOM LINE -
The warfare in America today is largely
informational and psychological... waged in the mass media to win the hearts
and minds of the mass consciousness. One side of this war, represented
largely by the monopoly media, is a top-down, highly centralized downward
disintegration debacle of dialectic disinformation, distress, dis-ease,
division, death and dying; entropy.
The other side of this war, represented largely by the Internet and personal
networks of friends and allies, is a highly decentralized, "bottom-up"
(grass roots) integration spiral that organizes all information IN
FORMATION along lines of greater LOVE; syntropy.
The prevailing movement at present leads to disorder
and dissonance. The other movement leads to divine order and harmony along
more enlightened lines that frame the constitution
of universal law .
At the initiation of Aquarius, we have the choice to
bring order to chaos -- harmony and healing to the dissonance and division.
As with the Piscean Master at the beginning of Pisces, the golden rule/law
language set the matrix for guiding the prophesied millennium. The Blueprint
For a Golden Age with holy compassion between the lines.
New America... worldwide.
May the Founders' vision be sustained in your consciousness, being and
So remember the spiritual intent of
the framers of the Constitution, embodied in these quotes:
- PS - Many are those who have lost faith and regard
any reference to "God" or "God government" as so much religious "BS" (Belief
System). That's where discernment comes in. The worst of all
propaganda is that which makes government god with war powers that create
and manage endless war for peace, calling evil "good" while blessing the
collusion of big business with big government to create Big Brother fascism.
It is just such disconnected, unfaithful, unloving unreality - some would
call insanity - that rationalizes, justifies and even "spiritualizes" the
encroaching tyranny by waving the flag and invoking high-sounding words of
freedom, security, patriotism and every godly virtue once held sacred.
powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary
in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced
the very definition of
-James Madison, Federalist 47
NOTE: It's critical
to understand the biggest difference in the design parameters of
successful representative government today versus 1776.
That would be the checks and balances
"of all powers"
that today would
include the mainstream public media channels
that shape our conscience and community... or lack of both.
This "4th estate"
today is potentially the key to
in the executive, judicial and executive. How that is NOW
possible is the most important story of the hour -- representing
faith, hope and charity for mankind as no other -- that NO MAJOR
MEDIA outlet has yet had the vision or courage to report with
reason and honor. Or as one true patriot recently wrote:
"Tyranny hates reason!
Tyranny hates honor! This is because Tyranny is overcome by
REASON and HONOR. It is Folly and Fear that is the food of
Tyrants. Tyranny thrives in a climate of dishonor and tolerance
of that dishonor."
- Reinhold Sommerstedt
Thomas Jefferson said simply that,
against tyrants is obedience to God"
Mohatma Gandhi dealt
with more recent tyranny by the same British Empire that
occupied India without representation "of, by and for the
people", just as in America in 1776. And as Gandhi said so
disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt.
And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and
Let individuals and nations
ally themselves no longer with death, but with life;
Not with destruction, but with construction; Not with hatred and violence, but
the creative miracles of LOVE."
media reporters, see news release at
It should be
common sense that the absence of truth and honor in a tyrannical
government would invert true spirituality with religious BS (Belief
Systems) that are politically correct but morally wrong.
"To those who
cite the First Amendment as reason for
excluding God from more and more of our institutions every day,
The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written
to protect the people of this country from religious values;
it was written to protect religious values
from government tyranny."
There is no more dangerous notion than that of America the Divine.
And the politicians are its priests.
The Religious "Belief System" (BS) in
Patriotism, Right or Wrong:
"Religion is indeed a principal
thing, but too much is worse
than none at all. The world abounds with knaves and villains,
but of all knaves, the religious knave is the
and villainies acted under the cloak of religion
are the most detestable."
-- wise ole'
"Men never do evil so completely and
as when they do it from religious conviction."
- Blaise Pascal
------------ article follows:
NOTE: As usual, I've added
quotes, comments and "color coding" to this article. Enjoy - CR
by Joe Sobran
How Tyranny Came to
One of the great goals of education is to initiate the young into the
conversation of their ancestors; to enable them to understand the language of
that conversation, in all its subtlety, and maybe even, in their maturity,
to add to it some wisdom of their own.
The modern American educational system no longer teaches us the political
language of our ancestors. In fact our schooling helps widen the gulf of time
between our ancestors and ourselves, because much
of what we are taught in the name of civics, political science, or American
history is really modern liberal propaganda.
Sometimes this is deliberate. Worse yet, sometimes it isn't. Our ancestral
voices have come to sound alien to us, and therefore our own moral and political
language is impoverished. It's as if the people of England could no longer
understand Shakespeare, or Germans couldn't comprehend Mozart and Beethoven.
So to most Americans, even those who feel oppressed by what they call big
government, it must sound strange to hear it said, in the past tense, that
tyranny "came" to America. After all, we have a constitution, don't we?
We've abolished slavery and segregation. We won two world wars and the Cold War.
We still congratulate ourselves before every ballgame on being the Land of the
Free. And we aren't ruled by some fanatic with a funny mustache who likes big
parades with thousands of soldiers goose-stepping past huge pictures of himself.
For all that, we no longer fully have what our ancestors, who framed and
ratified our Constitution, thought of as freedom - a careful
division of power that prevents power from becoming concentrated and unlimited.
The word they usually used for concentrated power was
consolidated - a rough synonym for
fascist. And the words they used for any
excessive powers claimed or exercised by the state were usurped
They would consider the modern "liberal" state
tyrannical in principle;
If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come
back, the first thing they'd notice would be that the federal government now
routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it - powers never
granted, never delegated, never enumerated.
These were the words they used, and
it's a good idea for us to learn their language.
they would see in it not the opposite of the fascist, communist,
and socialist states, but their sister.
They would say that we no longer live under the Constitution they wrote.
And the Americans of a much later era -- the period from Cleveland to Coolidge,
for example -- would say we no longer live even under the Constitution they
inherited and amended.
I call the present system "Post-Constitutional America." As I sometimes
put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.
What's worse is that our constitutional
illiteracy cuts us off from our own national heritage.
And so our politics degenerates into increasingly bitter
and unprincipled quarrels about who is going to bear the burdens of war and
I don't want to sound
like an oracle on this subject. As a typical victim of modern public education
and a disinformed citizen of this media-ridden country, I took a long time -- an
embarrassingly long time -- to learn what I'm passing on. It was like studying
geometry in old age, and discovering how simple the basic principles of space
It was the old story: In order to learn, first I had to unlearn. Most of
what I'd been taught and told about the Constitution was misguided or even
false. And I'd never been told some of the most elementary things, which would
have saved me a tremendous amount of confusion.
The Constitution does two things.
Most people understand the secondary principle of the
separation of powers.
But they don't grasp the primary idea of delegated and
- First, it delegates certain enumerated powers to
the federal government.
- Second, it separates those powers among the three
Consider this. We
have recently had a big national debate over national health care. Advocates and
opponents argued long and loud over whether it could work, what was fair, how to
pay for it, and so forth. But almost nobody raised the basic issue:
Where does the federal government get the power
to legislate in this area?
The answer is: Nowhere.
The Constitution lists 18 specific legislative powers
As a matter of fact, none of the delegated
powers of Congress -- and delegated is always the key word --
covers Social Security, or Medicaid, or Medicare, or federal aid to education,
or most of what are now miscalled "civil rights," or countless public works
projects, or equally countless regulations of business, large and small, or the
space program, or farm subsidies, or research grants, or subsidies to the arts
and humanities, or ... well, you name it, chances are it's unconstitutional.
Even the most cynical opponents of the Constitution would be dumbfounded to
learn that the federal government now tells us where we can smoke.
and not a one of
them covers national health care.
"Step by step,
American liberty is disappearing. Americans are being ruled, regulated,
We are less free, more heavily taxed, and
worse governed than our ancestors under British rule.
Sometimes this government makes me wonder: Was
George III really all that bad?
restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured,
counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused,
drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined,
disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed
to the point of
suffocation and desperation."
must realize that today's Establishment is
the new George III.
Let's be clear about one thing.
Constitutional and unconstitutional aren't just simple terms of
approval and disapproval. A bad law may be perfectly constitutional. A wise and
humane law may be unconstitutional. But what is
almost certainly bad is a constant disposition to thwart or disregard the
Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know.
If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."
- William O. Douglas, Supreme
in his book, Points of Rebellion, 1969
It's not just a matter of what is sometimes
called the "original intent" of the authors of the Constitution. What really
matters is the common, explicit, unchallenged understanding of the Constitution,
on all sides, over several generations. There was no mystery about it.
The logic of the Constitution was so elegantly simple that a foreign observer
could explain it to his countrymen in two sentences. Alexis de Tocqueville
wrote that "The
attributes of the federal government were carefully defined [in the
Constitution], and all that was not included among them was declared to remain
to the governments of the individual states. Thus the government of the states
remained the rule, and that of the federal government the exception."
The Declaration of Independence, which
underlies the Constitution, holds that the rights of the people come from God,
and that the powers of the government come from the people.
Let me repeat that: According to the Declaration of Independence,
the rights of the people come from God, and the powers
of the government come from the people.
Unless you grasp this basic order of things,
The Constitution was the instrument by which the American
people granted, or delegated, certain specific powers to the federal government.
Any power not delegated was withheld, or "reserved." As we'll see later,
these principles are expressed particularly in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
two crucial but neglected provisions of the Constitution.
you'll have a hard time understanding the Constitution.
Let me say it yet again: The rights of the people come from God. The powers
of government come from the people. The American people delegated the specific
powers they wanted the federal government to have through the Constitution. And
any additional powers they wanted to grant were supposed to be added by
It"s largely because we've forgotten these simple principles that the country is
in so much trouble.
The powers of the federal government have multiplied madly, with only the
vaguest justifications and on the most slippery pretexts. Its chief business
now is not defending our rights but taking and redistributing our wealth.
It has even created its own economy, the tax economy, which is
parasitical on the
basic and productive voluntary economy. Even much of what passes for "national
defense" is a kind of hidden entitlement program,
as was illustrated when President George Bush warned some states during the 1992
campaign that Bill Clinton would destroy jobs by closing down military bases.
Well, if those bases aren't necessary for our defense, they should be closed
Now of course nobody in American politics, not even the most fanatical liberal,
will admit openly that he doesn't care what the Constitution says and isn't
going to let it interfere with his agenda. Everyone professes to respect it -
even the Supreme Court. That's the problem.
The U.S. Constitution serves the same function as the British royal family:
it offers a comforting symbol of tradition and continuity, thereby masking a
radical change in the actual system of power.
So the people who mean to do without the Constitution have come up with a
slogan to keep up appearances: they say the Constitution is a
which sounds like a compliment. They say it has
in response to "changing circumstances,"
etc. They sneer at the idea that such a mystic document could still have the
same meanings it had two centuries ago, or even, I guess, sixty years ago,
just before the evolutionary process
[devolution, to be more accurate -CR] started
accelerating with fantastic velocity. These
people, who tend with suspicious consistency to be liberals, have discovered
that the Constitution, whatever it may have meant in the past, now means -
again, with suspicious consistency - whatever suits their present
Do liberals want big federal entitlement programs? Lo, the Interstate
Commerce Clause turns out to mean that the big federal programs are
constitutional! Do liberals oppose capital punishment? Lo, the ban on "cruel and
unusual punishment" turns out to mean that capital punishment is
unconstitutional! Do liberals want abortion on demand? Lo, the Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendments, plus their emanations and penumbras, turn out to mean
that abortion is nothing less than a woman's constitutional right!
Can all this be blind evolution? If liberals were more religious, they
might suspect the hand of Providence behind it! This marvelous "living document"
never seems to impede the liberal agenda in any way. On the contrary: it
always seems to demand, by a wonderful coincidence, just what liberals are
prescribing on other grounds.
Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really
possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all
50 states - no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive - had always
been unconstitutional. Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any
Court in all our history - not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not
Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren had ever been recorded as doubting
the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted
that the states had every right to enact them.
Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court's ruling in
Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a
meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the
current liberal agenda? Come now.
And notice that the
parts of this "living document? don't develop equally or consistently. The
Court has expanded the meaning of some of liberalism's pet rights, such as
freedom of speech, to absurd lengths; but it has neglected or even contracted
other rights, such as property rights, which liberalism is hostile to.
In order to appreciate what has happened, you have to stand back from all
the details and look at the outline. What
follows is a thumbnail history of the Constitution:
That is why they were called
?states?: a state was not yet thought of as a mere subdivision of a larger
unit, as is the case now. The universal understanding was that in ratifying
the Constitution, the 13 states yielded a very little of their
sovereignty, but kept most of it.
Those who were reluctant to ratify generally didn't
object to the powers the Constitution delegated to the federal government.
But they were suspicious: they wanted assurance that if those few powers
were granted, other powers, never granted, wouldn't be seized too. In The
Federalist, Hamilton and Madison argued at some length that under the
proposed distribution of power the federal government would never be able
to "usurp," as they put it, those other powers. Madison wrote soothingly
in Federalist No. 45 that the powers of the federal government would be "few
and defined," relating mostly to war and foreign policy, while those
remaining with the states would be "numerous and indefinite," and would have
to do with the everyday domestic life of the country.
The word usurpation occurs numberless
times in the ratification debates, reflecting the chief anxiety the
champions of the Constitution had to allay. And as a final assurance, the
Tenth Amendment stipulated that the powers not "delegated" to the federal
government were "reserved" to the separate states and to the people.
But this wasn't enough to satisfy everyone.
Well-grounded fears persisted. And during the first half of the
nineteenth century, nearly every president, in his inaugural message, felt
it appropriate to renew the promise that the powers of the federal
government would not be exceeded, nor the reserved powers of the states
The federal government
was to remain truly federal,
- In the beginning the states were independent and
with only a few specified powers,
rather than "consolidated,"
with unlimited powers.
The Civil War, or the War
Between the States if you like, resulted from the suspicion that the North
meant to use the power of the Union to destroy the sovereignty of the
Southern states. Whether or not that suspicion was justified, the war itself
produced that very result. The South was subjugated and occupied like a
conquered country. Its institutions were profoundly remade by the federal
government; the United States of America was taking on the character of an
extensive, and highly centralized, empire. Similar processes were under way
in Europe, as small states were consolidated into large ones, setting the
stage for the tyrannies and gigantic wars of the twentieth century.
Even so, the three constitutional amendment ratified
after the war contain a significant clause:
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation." Why is
this significant? Because it shows that even the conquerors still understood
that a new power of Congress required a constitutional amendment. It
couldn't just be taken by majority vote, as it would be today. If the
Congress then had wanted a national health plan, it would have begun by
asking the people for an amendment to the Constitution authorizing it to
legislate in the area of health care. The immediate purpose of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for a proposed
civil rights act.
But the Supreme Court soon found other uses for
the Fourteenth Amendment. It began striking down state laws as
unconstitutional. This was an important new twist in American
constitutional law. Hamilton, in arguing for judicial review in Federalist
No. 78, had envisioned the Court as a check on Congress, resisting
the illicit consolidation or centralization of power. And our civics
books still describe the function of checks and balances in terms of the
three branches of the federal government mutually controlling each other.
But in fact, the Court was
now countermanding the state legislatures, where the principle of
checks and balances had no meaning, since those state legislatures had no
reciprocal control on the Court. This development eventually set the stage for the
convulsive Supreme Court rulings of the late twentieth century, from Brown
v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade.
The big thing to recognize here is that the
Court had become the very opposite of the institution Hamilton and others had had in
Instead of blocking the centralization of power
in the federal government,
the Court was assisting it.
The original point of the
federal system was that the federal government would have very little to say
about the internal affairs of the states. But the result of the Civil War
was that the federal government had a great deal to say about those affairs
in Northern as well as Southern states.
Note that this trend toward centralization was
occurring largely under Republican presidents. The Democrat Grover
Cleveland was one of the last great spokesmen for federalism. He once vetoed
a modest $10,000 federal grant for drought relief on grounds that there was
no constitutional power to do it. If that sounds archaic, remember that the
federal principle remained strong long enough that during the 1950s, the
federal highway program had to be called a "defense" measure in order to win
approval, and federal loans to college students in the 1960s were absurdly
called "defense" loans for the same reason. The Tenth Amendment is a refined
taste, but it has always had a few devotees.
But federalism suffered some serious wounds during
the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. First came the income tax, its
constitutionality established by the Sixteenth Amendment; this meant that
every U.S. citizen was now, for the first time, directly accountable to the
federal government. Then the Seventeenth Amendment required that
senators be elected by popular vote rather than chosen by state legislators;
this meant that the states no longer had their own representation in
Congress, so that they now lost their remaining control over the federal
The Eighteenth Amendment, establishing Prohibition,
gave the federal government even greater powers over the country's
internal affairs. All these amendments were ominous signs that
federalism was losing its traditional place in the hearts, and perhaps the
minds, of Americans.
But again, notice that these expansions of federal
power were at least achieved by amending the Constitution, as the
Constitution itself requires. The Constitution doesn't claim to be a "living
document." It is written on paper, not rubber.
In fact the radicals of the early twentieth century
despaired of achieving socialism or communism as long as the Constitution
remained. They regarded it as the critical obstacle to their plans, and
thought a revolution would be necessary to remove it. As The New Republic
wrote: "To have a socialist society we must have a new Constitution."
That's laying it on the line!
Unfortunately, the next generation of collectivists
would be less candid in their contempt for the federal system. Once they
learned to feign devotion to the Constitution
they secretly regarded as
obsolete, the laborious formality of amendment
would no longer be necessary. They could
merely pretend that the Constitution was on their side. After Franklin
Roosevelt restaffed the Supreme Court with his compliant cronies, the
federal government would be free to make up its own powers as it went
along, thanks to the notion that the Constitution was a malleable "living
document," whose central meaning could
be changed, and even reversed, by ingenious interpretation.
Roosevelt's New Deal brought
fascist-style central planning to America -
what some call the "mixed economy" but Hilaire Belloc called the Servile
State - and his highhanded approach to governance soon led to conflict
with the Court, which found several of his chief measures unconstitutional.
Early in his second term, as you know, Roosevelt retaliated by trying to
"pack" the Court by increasing the number of seats. This power play
alienated even many of his allies, but it turned out not to be necessary.
After 1937 the Court began seeing things Roosevelt's way. It voted as he
wished; several members obligingly retired; and soon he had appointed a
majority of the justices. The country
virtually got a new Constitution.
Roosevelt's Court soon decided that the Tenth
Amendment was a "truism," of no real force. This meant that almost any
federal act was ipso facto constitutional, and the powers "reserved" to the
states and the people were just leftovers the federal government didn't
want, like the
meal left for the jackals by the satisfied lion.
There was almost no limit, now, on what the federal government could do. In
effect, the powers of the federal government no longer had to come from the
people by constitutional delegation:
they could be created by simple political power.
Roosevelt also set the baneful
precedent of using entitlement programs,
such as Social Security, to buy some people's votes with other people's
money. It was
both a fatal corruption of democracy and the realization of the Servile
State in America. The class of voting parasites has been swelling ever
So the New Deal didn't just expand the power of the
federal government; that had been done before. The New Deal did much
deeper mischief: it struck at the whole principle of constitutional
resistance to federal expansion. Congress didn't need any constitutional
amendment to increase its powers; it could increase its own powers ad hoc,
at any time, by simple majority vote.
All this, of course, would
have seemed monstrous to our ancestors.
Even Alexander Hamilton,
who favored a relatively strong central government in his time,
never dreamed of a government so powerful.
The Court suffered a bloody defeat at Roosevelt's
hands, and since his time it has never found a major act of Congress
unconstitutional. This has allowed the power of the federal government to
grow without restraint. At the federal level,
"checks and balances" has
ceased to include judicial review.
This is a startling fact, flying as it does in the
face of the familiar conservative complaints about the Court's "activism."
When it comes to Congress, the Court has been absolutely passive. As
if to compensate for its habit of capitulation to Congress, the Court's
post-World War II "activism" has been directed entirely against the states,
whose laws it has struck down in areas that used to be considered their
settled and exclusive provinces.
Time after time, it has found
"unconstitutional" laws whose legitimacy had stood unquestioned throughout
the history of the Republic.
Notice how total the reversal of the Court's role has
been. It began with the duty, according to Hamilton, of striking down new
seizures of power by Congress. Now it finds constitutional virtually
everything Congress chooses to do. The federal government has assumed
myriads of new powers nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution, yet
the Court has never seriously impeded this expansion, or rather explosion,
of novel claims of power. What it finds unconstitutional are the traditional
powers of the states.
The postwar Court has done pioneering work in one
notable area: the
separation of church and state. I said
"pioneering," not praiseworthy.
The Court has consistently imposed an understanding of the First Amendment
that is not only exaggerated but unprecedented - most notoriously in its
1962 ruling that prayer in public schools amounts to an
"establishment of religion."
This interpretation of the Establishment
Clause has always been
to the disadvantage of
Christianity and of any law with roots in Christian morality.
And it's impossible to
doubt that the justices who voted for this interpretation
were voting their predilections.
Maybe that's the point.
I've never heard it put quite this way, but the Court's boldest rulings
showed something less innocent than a series of honest mistakes.
Studying these cases and
others of the Court's liberal heyday, one never gets the
sense that the majority was suppressing its own preferences; it was
clearly enacting them.
It's ironic to recall Hamilton's assurance that the
Supreme Court would be "the least dangerous" of the three branches of the
federal government. But Hamilton did give us a shrewd warning about what
would happen if the Court were ever corrupted: in Federalist No. 78 he wrote
can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have
everything to fear
from its union with either of the other
Those rulings can be described as wishful thinking
run amok, and touched with more than a little arrogance.
All in all, the
Court displayed the opposite of the restrained and impartial temperament one
expects even of a traffic-court judge, let alone a Supreme Court.
Since Franklin Roosevelt, as I've said, the
judiciary has in effect
formed a union with the other two branches
aggrandize the power
of the federal government
at the expense of the states
and the people.
This, in outline, is the
constitutional history of the United States. You won't find it in the
textbooks, which are required to be optimistic, to present degeneration as
development, and to treat the successive pronouncements of the Supreme Court
as so many oracular revelations of constitutional meaning.
"The accumulation of all
powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary
in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced
the very definition of
-James Madison, Federalist 47
some would call that fascism. What
do you think?
[Read, "Fascism in America?"
www.heartcom.org/fascism.htm - CR]
A leading liberal scholar, Leonard Levy, has gone so far as to say that what
matters is not what the Constitution says, but what the Court has said about the
Constitution in more than 400 volumes of commentary.
This can only mean that the commentary has displaced
the original text,
We the People can't read and understand our own
Constitution. We have to have it explained to us by the professionals. Moreover,
if the Court enjoys oracular status, it can't really be criticized, because it
can do no wrong. We may dislike its results, but future rulings will have to
be derived from them as precedents, rather than from the text and logic of the
Constitution. And notice that the ?conservative? justices appointed by
Republican presidents have by and large upheld not the original Constitution,
but the most liberal interpretations of the Court itself ? notably on the
subject of abortion, which I'll return to in a minute.
and that "We the People" have been supplanted by
"We the Lawyers."
To sum up this little constitutional history. The history of the Constitution
is the story of its inversion.
[perversion and subversion of the Founder's intent -CR]
The original understanding of the Constitution has been reversed. The
Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly delegated to
the federal government and a corresponding presumption in favor of the rights
and powers of the states and the people.
But we now have a sloppy
presumption in favor of federal power.
Most people assume the federal government can do anything
it isn't plainly forbidden to do.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were
adopted to make the principle of the Constitution as clear as possible.
Hamilton, you know, argued against adding a Bill of Rights, on grounds that it
would be redundant and confusing. He thought it would seem to imply that the
federal government had more powers than it had been given. Why say, he asked,
that the freedom of the press shall not be infringed, when the federal
government would have no power by which it could be infringed?
stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in
our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun
control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations,
or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT,
or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights on
private property; no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet
departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government
would be small, frugal, and limited."
-Congressman Ron Paul (1998)
And you can even make the case that he was exactly
Be that as it may, the Bill of Rights
was adopted, but it was designed to meet his objection. The Ninth Amendment
says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth
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.?"
He understood, at any rate, that our freedom is safer if we
think of the Constitution as a list of powers
rather than as a
list of rights.
Now what these two provisions mean is pretty simple. The Ninth means
that the list of the people's rights in the Constitution is not meant to be
complete -- that they still have many other rights, like the right to travel or
to marry, which may deserve just as much respect as the right not to have
soldiers quartered in one's home in peacetime. The Tenth, on the other hand,
means that the list of powers "delegated" to the federal government is complete
-- and that any other powers the government assumed would be, in the Framers'
habitual word, "usurped."
As I said earlier, the Founders believed that
our rights come from God, and the government's powers come from us. So the
Constitution can't list all our rights, but it can and does list all the federal
You can think of the Constitution as a sort of antitrust act for government,
with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at its core.
It's remarkable that the same liberals who think
business monopolies are sinister think monopolies of political power are
progressive. When they can't pass their programs because of the constitutional
safeguards, they complain about "gridlock" -- a clich' that shows they miss
the whole point of the enumeration and separation of powers.
Well, I don't have to tell you that this way of
thinking is absolutely alien to that of today's politicians and pundits. Can you
imagine Al Gore, Dan Rostenkowski, or Tom Brokaw having a conversation about
political principles with any of the Founding Fathers? If you can, you must
have a vivid fantasy life.
And the result of the loss of our original political idiom has been, as I
say, to invert the original presumptions. The average American, whether he
has had high-school civics or a degree in political science, is
apt to assume that the Constitution somehow empowers the
government to do nearly anything, while implicitly limiting our rights by
listing them. Not that anyone would say it this
way. But it's as if the Bill of Rights had said that the enumeration of the
federal government's powers in the Constitution is not meant to deny or
disparage any other powers it may choose to claim, while the rights not given to
the people in the Constitution are reserved to the federal government to give or
withhold, and the states may be progressively stripped of their original powers.
What it comes to is that we don't really have an
operative Constitution anymore. The federal
government defines its own powers day by day. It's limited not by the list of
its powers in the Constitution, but by whatever it can get away with
politically. Just as the president can now send troops abroad to fight without a
declaration of war, Congress can pass a national health care program without a
constitutional delegation of power. The only restraint left is political
opposition. [And the "choice" between a Skull & Bones Bush or a Skull and Bones
If you suspect I'm overstating the change from our original principles, I
give you the late Justice Hugo Black. In a 1965 case called Griswold v.
Connecticut, the Court struck down a law forbidding the sale of contraceptives
on grounds that it violated a right of "privacy." (This supposed right, of
course, became the basis for the Court's even more radical 1973 ruling in Roe v.
Wade, but that's another story.) Justice Black dissented in the Griswold case on
the following ground: "I like my privacy as well as the next [man],"
he wrote, "but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a
right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."
What a hopelessly muddled - and really sinister - misconception of the relation
between the individual and the state: government
has a right to invade our privacy, unless prohibited by the Constitution.
You don't have to share the Court's twisted view of the right of privacy in
order to be shocked that one of its members takes this view of the
government to invade privacy.
It gets crazier. In 1993 the Court handed down one of the most bizarre
decisions of all time. For two decades, enemies of legal abortion had been
supporting Republican candidates in the hope of filling the Court with
appointees who would review Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the
Court finally did so. But even with eight Republican appointees on the Court,
the result was not what the conservatives had hoped for.
The Court reaffirmed Roe.
Its reasoning was amazing. A plurality opinion
- a majority of the five-justice majority in the case - admitted that the Court's previous ruling in Roe might be logically and historically
vulnerable. But it held that the paramount consideration was that the
Court be consistent, and not appear to be yielding to public pressure, lest it
lose the respect of the public. Therefore the Court allowed Roe to stand.
Among many things that might be said about this ruling, the most basic is this:
The Court in effect declared itself a third party to the controversy, and
then, setting aside the merits of the two principals? claims,
ruled in its own interest!
It was as if the referee in a prizefight had declared
himself the winner. Cynics had always suspected that the Court did not forget
its self-interest in its decisions, but they never expected to hear it say so.
The three justices who signed that opinion evidently didn't realize what they
were saying. A distinguished veteran Court-watcher (who approved of Roe, by
the way) told me he had never seen anything like it. The Court was actually
telling us that it put its own welfare ahead of the merits of the arguments
before it. In its confusion, it was blurting
out the truth.
But by then very few Americans could even remember
the original constitutional plan.
The original plan was as Madison and Tocqueville described it: State
government was to be the rule, federal government the exception.
The states' powers were to be
"numerous and indefinite,"
The unchecked federal government has not only overflowed its
banks; it has even created its own economy.
Thanks to its exercise of myriad unwarranted
powers, it can claim tens of millions of dependents, at least part of whose
income is due to the abuse of the taxing and spending powers for their benefit:
government employees, retirees, farmers, contractors, teachers, artists, even
"few and defined."
This is a matter not only of history, but of iron logic:
the Constitution doesn't make sense when read any other way.
As Madison asked, why bother listing particular federal powers
unless unlisted powers are withheld?
Large numbers of these people are paid much more than their market value
because the taxpayer is forced to subsidize them. By the same token, most
taxpayers would instantly be better off if the federal government simply ceased
to exist - or if it suddenly returned to its constitutional functions.
Can we restore the Constitution and recover our freedom? I have no doubt that we
can. Like all great reforms, it will take an intelligent, determined effort
by many people. I don't want to sow false optimism.
"Those who profess
to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation,
But the time is ripe for a
constitutional counterrevolution. Discontent with the ruling system, as the
1992 Perot vote showed, is deep and widespread among several classes of people:
Christians, conservatives, gun owners, taxpayers, and simple believers in honest
government all have their reasons.
are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.
They want rain without thunder and lightning.
They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one;
or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle!
Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did, and it never will.
Find out just what people will submit to,
and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong
which will be imposed upon them;
and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows,
or with both.
The limits of tyrants are prescribed
by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
- Thomas Paine, a corset
maker, who sparked the American Revolution with COMMON SENSE
The rulers lack legitimacy and don't believe in their
own power strongly enough to defend it.
The beauty of it is that the people don't have to invent a
new system of government in order to get rid of this one. They only have to
restore the one described in the Constitution - the system our government
already professes to be upholding.
Taken seriously, the Constitution would
pose a serious threat to our form of government.
And for just that reason, the ruling
parties will be finished as soon as the American people rediscover and awaken
their dormant Constitution.
- "Once a government resorts to
terror against its own population to get what it wants,
it must keep using terror against its own population to get what it
A government that terrorizes its own people can never stop.
If such a government ever lets the fear subside
and rational thought
return to the populace,
that government is finished."
- --Michael Rivero
The second coming of higher Christic consciousness and
holy Buddhic compassion in the minds and heart of the Internet connected world
will follow the interactive interface implimentation of the
LOVE Model at the
heart of the TeLeComm
processes that define and refine our individual and collective consciousness
along more enlightened lines that frame the universal law Constitution of
G.O.D.~LOVE Language. -CR
continues because of your generous donations!
Essays and Articles |
How to Subscribe or Renew I
Books by Joe
Copyright 1994, 1999 by the Vere Company
- "So long as the people do not care to
exercise their freedom,
- those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for
tyrants are active and ardent,
- and will devote themselves in the name of any
number of gods,
- religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon
- -Voltarine de Cleyre
- "As nightfall does not come all at once,
neither does oppression.
- In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is
in such twilight
we all must be aware of
change in the air
-- however slight
- -- lest we become unwitting victims of the
- - William O. Douglas, 1939 - 1975
- US Supreme Court Justice.
CopyRound 2004, HEARTcom
Services all rights well-rounded
With a Higher Understanding of LOVE
Defining, Refining, Combining and Shining
Our God-given Gifts and Talents via Net Standards
For a New Economy based on LOVE-centric
Forward to those you
subscribe at email@example.com