US Constitution and what it really says

The basis of the US constitution is that it lists what the federal government can do.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Article 1 section 8 lists what Congress can do.

The 10th amendment is the most important amendment in limiting the federal government and it has become the most ignored since the civil war.

The 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is meant to limit the federal government and allow for local law making. The closer the elected official is to the people the more responsive. The federal government is supposed to be weak and very limited.

Everyone should read the US constitution, It is fairly short and not written in very comlicated languge on purpose. It is a document for the people by the people. I think most will be amazed at how small and limited the federal government is supposed to be.

The reason the federal government is intended to be small and fairly weak is that it is a truth of human history that strong central governments will collapse upon their own weight eventually due to the old adage.

“power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

America is becoming what Thomas Jefferson once wrote

“A society that wishes to remain free but in a state of ignorance wants what no society has ever had and no society ever will.”

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

California Prop 8 and what should be the topic

With all the emotionally charged discussion about Prop 8 (in 2008), Prop 22 (in 2000) and the California supreme court ruling of May 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000) one big issue that I see has not been discussed anywhere.

This topic is the basic premise that a court can rule a validly passed constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.

This is the bigger picture and what republicans and conservatives should be changing the discussion. This is not activist judges this is the creation of a ruling class that is above the law.

As soon as it is accepted that judges are above the constitution and can change the constitution at will, this is beginning of tyranny.

Every time the discussion of Prop 8 comes up the republican/conservative should ask the question of the others participating in the discussion, “How can a judge rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional?”.

The premise that the constitution is the overarching and the one ultimate law of the land (either state or federal) is the very basis of the American government and our way of life.

Going back into history, the congress passed many laws on taxing income prior to the 16th amendment. The supreme court continually ruled that these types of taxes were not allowed since it was not written into the constitution. The Congress then passed the 16th amendment and enough states ratified the 16th amendment that it become part of the constitution and the supreme court could not longer rule that the federal government could not have an income tax.

Going to extremes, this means the US supreme court has authority to make any change it wants to the constitution and the how the government is structured any way 5 of them can agree and edict from the bench as part of a court ruling.

We do not like that a president can only serve 2 terms cause we like the one that appointed us, the 22nd amendment is no longer valid and while we are at it we think that 4 years between elections is to short of a time frame, we will make it 40 years between elections.

We do not think that there should be two houses in congress, so we are changing article 1 so that only one house is the congress. We think it should be the senators, since they were nice enough to confirm us, and they can serve for 40 years instead of the 6 in the current silly rules.

Think I am being extreme, look in the news.

Bloomberg and the city council in NY are changing the term limits of the mayor that was put into the city charter on a referendum vote by the people of NYC. All because Bloomberg is needed during the time of financial turmoil and the city can’t survive without him.

American’s need to open up our eyes we are being lied to by every level of our government and being told what is up is down and down is up. The Constitution is being taken apart 1 piece at a time right in front of our face as we are distracted by meaningless issues.