[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? Part III Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? Part III Gary North, in his book "Political Polytheism" observed that "...the Constitution removed Christian religious tests as the judicial requirement of the judges and officers of the new national government. That, in and of itself, delivered the republic into the hands of the humanists. Nothing else was necessary after that. From that point on, the secularization of America was a mopping-up operation." That's a much different assessment than most of us get of the Constitution, even in Christian circles. I must admit that when I first saw North's book I was a little hesitant about his thesis and where he was coming from. As the years have passed I have become less so. North also made another interesting observation. He noted that "The sought-for Constitutional balance of the one and the many, apart from the Bible and the Old Testament case laws, is unattainable." In other words, you cannot have a proper relationship between a central government and the state governments apart from Scripture. North says "Like Newton's universe apart from God's constant, active providence, the 'balanced Constitution' will eventually move toward centralized tyranny (the fear of the Anti-federalists) or toward dissolution (the fear of the Federalists). Both movements took place in 1861-65." The Anti-federalists feared tyranny; the Federalists feared secession. North's comments have added whole different perspective to the question of the Constitution and what it really says. Back in August of 2004, Gary North wrote an article called "Conspiracy In Philadelphia" in which he noted: "In 1787 the states, with one exception (Rhode Island), were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new Constitution made all such oaths illegal for Federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments, completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso v. Watkins (1961). I told this story 15 years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening." Mr. North, like many of us over the years, has learned that the movers and shakers will simply ignore what they do not want touched upon and they will encourage others to ignore it. And mostly, they do. However, Mr. North has posted his book "Conspiracy In Philadelphia: The Origins of the U.S. Constitution" on the Internet, from which it can be downloaded. According to North's article it can be downloaded at http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf I would encourage those who have genuine concerns about our "founding document" and its background to download North's book and see what he has to say. If I know North, his analysis will be penetrating. Another man who has done work in this area is Gary M. Galles, a professor of economics at Pepperdine University. Awhile back he wrote an article for http://www.freedomforallseasons.org called 'The Antifederalists were right." Galles told us that "Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the 'general welfare' (which would be claimed for every law) and the 'all laws necessary and proper' clause (which would be used to override limits on delegated federal powers), creating a federal government with unwarranted and undefeated powers that were bound to be abused." In the light of history, there's not much you can argue with in that analysis. Although the Anti-Federalists may not have gotten it all totally right, their concerns were certainly valid. Galles notes of them: "For instance, they did not see that the Commerce Clause would come to be called 'the everything clause' in law schools, used by the centralizers to justify almost any conceivable federal intervention. The 20th century distortion of the clause's original meaning was so great even the vigilant Antifederalists could never have imagined the government getting away with it." Is all of this one possible reason that the Obama regime was so sure of itself in threatening the general public with jail if they refused to purchase "mandatory health insurance?" If this is where the so-called "commerce clause" is really at, then nothing can be denied this government--no matter how dictatorial it may be. To be continued. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
Thank you for this insightful series. Another eye-opener here.
#2. To: Lod (#1)
deleted
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||