The "28th Amendment"

Folks, the proposed 28th Amendment is a terrible idea. It reads:

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

1. Let's think this through: Ours is a Constitution of "enumerated powers" only. See: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-p... & http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/the-u-s-census-rule-o...

2. The problem is that Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch IGNORE the Constitution.

3. How would an Amendment fix this? Why would any Branch of the federal government apply any such Amendment the way you think it should be applied? How could any Amendment MAKE them obey the Constitution, when they don't obey it now?

4. The reasons they disobey the Constitution are these: They want to, and We the People wanted them to. Social security, Medicare, government grants, programs for farmers, earmarks, etc., are all unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers of Congress. But we wanted the handouts - we wanted the pork. So we didn't care that what they were doing was unconstitutional.

5. Now, listen carefully: The proposed 28th Amendment would have the effect of creating a "general" legislative power in Congress. A "general" legislative power is the opposite of enumerated powers only. With the "general" legislative power created by the proposed 28th Amendment, Congress could make any law on any object as long as it applied to them as well as to us.

So, while you might think that the 28th Amendment will "show them" that they can't pass laws for us and exempt themselves, the actual result of such an Amendment would be to destroy the concept of "enumerated powers" altogether. Plus, they would continue to ignore the Constitution!

6. Amendments to the Constitution are, in general, a really bad idea. In Federalist No. 84 (10th para), Alexander Hamilton warned against "bills of rights" . He said that not only are they unnecessary, they are dangerous - for they provide, to those disposed to usurp, a pretext for doing so. He said:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Hamilton was right. The U.S. Supreme Court has since used the 1st Amendment, which guarantees free exercise of religion & free speech, to BAN Christian speech in the public square. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-an... Read also Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2009) for a history of the Supreme Court's 1st Amendment jurisprudence respecting political speech! YES, they have long approved restrictions on political speech! Reconcile that with the text of the 1st Amendment! You can't.

The point is this: The federal courts will construe any new Amendment however they want!

7. Our Constitution doesn't need amending except to repeal some of the previous ill-considered Amendments such as the 16th & 17th. Let's not blame-shift and say our political problems are due to defects in the Constitution. The defects are in our own plunder-loving hearts.

8. We fix our political problems by: (a) Learning the Constitution ourselves; (b) Supporting it and stop clamoring for unconstitutional handouts; (c) Electing people who will be faithful to the Constitution; (d) Demanding that our representatives impeach, try, convict and remove from office all who don't; and (e) Returning to personal morality and personal responsibility.

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JC Daley on March 25, 2010 at 11:38am

The Congress can pass the same law without it being an "amendment". They did exactly the opposite in the Health Care bill by exempting themselves and other Federal employees from having to participate in the proposed bill because they already have a system they don't want to change. This is the reason for the proposed 28th Amendment. What Congress does they can undo. The States will also nullify this bill (38 so far). There are remedies that don't include amending the Constitution and your #8 above especially (c) will resolve the issue--perhaps not as fast as people would like, November is not that far away!!

Permalink Reply by Phil on March 25, 2010 at 12:37pm

Yup. No.8 would do it. Simple. All we have to do is apply the constitution for our argument.. This works very well. I have been arguing the Constitution and Bill of Rights and then say,"What don't you understand about that,you got a problem with the constitution"? In this way you use their own tactics on them.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 25, 2010 at 10:20pm

Friend, If I understand what you are saying, you greviously misstate the position of "the Federalists." If, by "the Federalists", you are referring to Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, their positions are clearly laid out in The Federalist Papers. They were staunch supporters of a limited federal government with enumerated powers; and spoke passionately of how acts done outside the enumerated powers were "mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such". I have quotes from them saying things like this all throughout my various papers. We owe them much.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 26, 2010 at 8:33am

Dennis, dear. You are suffering under some grevious misconceptions about Alexander Hamilton. I think the Enemy infiltrated patriot circles to turn them against one of the staunchest supporters of limited civil government the world has ever seen. It is quite the fashion to trash Hamilton! I ask you to lay aside what you think you know and read Hamilton's own words. I quote him all the time in my papers! And for good reason: He tells us to impeach usurping federal judges & presidents. He tells us that acts of Congress which are not authorized under the enumerated powers are mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such.
The things you are saying about Hamilton are NOT TRUE! We can not read secondary sources and then go around repeating what they say. We must check out the original sources. You must read Hamilton's actual writings. READ my papers, paying special attention to Hamilton's quotes. Then, look up the quotes yourself in The Federalist Papers!
Yes, he later supported a national bank. Yes, that was unconstitutional. But I've never met a perfect person yet; and it no way detracts from the AUTHORITY of his writings in The Federalist Papers.

And our beloved Tho. Jefferson usurped powers in the Louisiana Purchase. He knew he didn't have constitutional authority to do that. Jefferson wasn't perfect either. You make a serious error, and undermine our movement, when you trash one of our greatest heroes. Learn first - Speak second!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 26, 2010 at 11:10am

I never read secondary sources (biographies, etc.) when primary sources are available. You must read Hamilton's own words. Glen Beck was just now saying on his radio show that that evil man, Woodrow Wilson, and his gang set out to separate us from our Founding Fathers. And wow! Did they suceed! They turned many of us against a champion of limited constitutional government. Hamilton is one of a handful of men in all of world history! For starters, read his quotes in this: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/rule-of-law/
It is our enemy who seeks to discredit Hamilton in our eyes. Hamilton, Madison & Jefferson are 3 of the greatest champions of limited constitutional government who ever lived in all of world history. Other Americans, such as Geo. Washington, Adams, Patrick Henry, etc. were also very great. BUT Hamilton, Madison, & Jefferson are the one who left us with the most important WRITINGS on political liberty and limited civil government.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 26, 2010 at 12:09pm

You must learn about "federalism". I explain it here: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/federalism/
Read also Federalist No. 39 (James Madison)

Our Constitution set up a "federal" government which was "national" as to the 21 or so enumerated powers delegated to the "federal" government. It was "federal" in that all other powers remained with the States and the People. If you will study all the papers on my site, and look the quotes up in The Federalist Papers, you will see! I am working on something else now, so must get back to that. We can talk after you have read!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 25, 2010 at 10:06pm

Right. We can't just pull the rug out from under old people who are now dependent on ss & medicare. An ancient equitable doctrine of estoppel prohibits it. So! We have to dismantle the programs gradually, and find ways to fund them until we can phase them out entirely. I have some ideas on how to do this. But I don't know economics. Economists have to look at this, see what is feasible, what is not, and come up with a specific plan for phasing the programs out. Economists! We need you! It can be done. If we face Reality, deal with Facts, use Logic, & renounce Plunder, we can fix this and restore our Constitutional Republic!

Step No. 1 is for us all to admit that the programs are headed for disaster anyway due to the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. But our people would rather "feel good" than deal with Reality; so they don't want to face unpleasant facts. And when Democrat politicians lie to them about it, they want to believe the lie.

Our dependence on medicare & other taxpayer funded medical services reflects our refusal to take personal responsibility for our own health. Perhaps you heard about the new study: women can significantly reduce their chances of getting cancer by diet & exercise! [I have known this for 40 years.] Excess estrogen in older women can cause cancer. The estrogen is stored in body fat, so obese women are at a high risk of getting cancer. But someone said that is "blaming the victim"! See? We are a nation of victims! I can stuff myself with food, get cancer, expect the taxpayers to pay for it, and they better not say it's my fault because I'm a "victim"! In short, the taxpayers are forced to subsidize irresponsibility and vice. And all in the name of compassion.

Sometimes I think Charlie Greenbacker is right and we are doomed. Are We willing to face Reality, take responsibility for our own health & finances, and give up the plunder? Are we willing to give up the lifelong dream of living at other peoples' expense?

If we don't become morally regenerated PDQ, the ss & medicare funding problems are going to be "fixed" obama's way: kill off the old people by denying them medical care altogether.

Permalink Reply by Phil on March 26, 2010 at 8:57am

There is no Social Security fund anymore.
Our retirement plan has been looted by congress, That's jail time for you or I. Congress STOLE your retirement plan to buy votes for themselves. Biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Now they are about to steal all the prosperity in our government..
They dishonor their posts and spit in the face of the PEOPLE and then call is names if we disapprove.
"My government no longer has my consent"!

Permalink Reply by Phil on March 26, 2010 at 9:47am

Publius they are already trying to get that into our heads.(about killing the old people)buy saying the last 6 months is the most expensive. They are already slipping that insidious thought into the minds. They spit in our face and mooned us on Sunday. They also spit on God.
"My government no longer has my consent"!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on March 26, 2010 at 11:19am

You see right through them: They are setting out to manipulate us into accepting the termination of medical care to the elderly. But hey! The elderly are not innocent victims: They loved Medicare! They loved having others pay their medical expenses. Which brings us back to the last quote by Samuel Adams posted on the Wall of our Study Group: The tyrants must corrupt the people morally before they can take them over politically.
Too many of us think we are entitled to live at other peoples' expense! If we don't shake off that satanic lie PDQ, we will get what we deserve.

Permalink Reply by Ripama on March 25, 2010 at 11:11pm

I see your point about granting Congress general legislative power. A clever congress could write laws that APPLY ro everyone, but FAVORS Congress.