Me & my speech.

Archive for October, 2015

#11- About Government & Regulation vs. LOVE & Freedom

The “U.S. Constitution has been shared in some slight degree with the recent posts here, but so have contentions about the government and how it’s regulations diverge from the “Constitution”.  Because of this please remember that the theme of that document defines the purpose of the regulations in that document:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote [get behind, boost, not make] the general welfare, and secure [fortify, preserve, assure, (Webster’s New World Thesaurus, 1990)]] the blessings of liberty [the rights supposedly natural to man- freedom; independence; power of choice, (Webster’s New World Thesaurus, 1990)] to ourselves and our posterity [our children’s future, our descendant’s future, (Webster’s New World Thesaurus, 1990)], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A document prepared by men of faith, that to a degree professed a belief in God’s hand in this government and who worked, in Rhapsodie’s opinion towards LOVE.  There are multiple comments shared with the statements of previous posts, but it’s always important to remember and connect the theme of the “U. S. Constitution to the articles & sections of the “U.S. Constitution” with interpretations of it.

Take for example how the Commerce Clause interpretation, from the Constitutional definition, has affected freedom and LOVE while increasing the power of the dollar and the government.  The clause is constitutionalized under stare decisis because the Supreme Court made this judgement in interpretation, in 1832 the federal government is now empowered to control all commerce in the United States, unless they determine that there is an unsubstantial effect to interstate commerce with a business.

Rhapsodie has read multiple legal cases that cause her to see this as bad, not good for the free people in the United States. “In 1942, for example, the Supreme Court held that wheat production by an individual farmer intended wholly for consumption on his own farm was subject to federal regulation.” (Clarkson, 2012) How would an individual’s consumption of wheat raised on his own land, in his own state for eating by his own family cause ANY problem with interstate trade? Oh, maybe it would mean he wouldn’t buy wheat from another state, but he could buy wheat from his own state anyway, so this interpretation has led to federal regulation, not freedom for the people.

While the commerce clause interpretation could have legitimate value and purpose, the 175, size 6 font, double column, text book sized, pages of the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code) is just a section of the law used to control people by business in the United States and this controlling effects the Native American peoples also. It’s not based on freedom and lLOVE it’s based on control and maximization of money in controlling. The blessings of liberty are actually minimized with these laws; the general welfare of the public is diminished by capturing souls in the cost of life with national healthcare and its minimization of the people’s control of their own lives.

This short dissertation shows how the actions that don’t demonstrate LOVE can fail, and since “LOVE never fails” there’s a need to make sure all regulations and control systems are done with a base of LOVE instead of Selfish Pride. The theme for the whole “United States Constitution shows that these shared aspects of control are unconstitutional and ungodly, at least in accord with Rhapsodie’s interpretations. But her sharing here is only based on a limited examination of the history of the United States and the definitions of this country. There is more for you to see, so read even if you decide to disagree.

READ MORE:

#10- About Government & Regulation vs. LOVE & Freedom

On her opinion that neither the Executive Branch, the president of the U.S., or the Legislative branch would have any rights in altering the laws of a people viewed as individual nations. They also shouldn’t have any right to diminish freedom of all because of the fear of a few. There may have been alterations to the regulations or laws in accord with the Native American’s, but they aren’t Constitutional amendments.  There are also more present discrepancies, with regards to present law and regulations in the United States versus Constitutional definitions. Let’s start with defining property, isn’t it possession that is not another’s?

Land, money, furniture any property can be undermined by diminished wealth, if the value of the money I make at work is minimized by the government, because of National Health Care, then why should I work for any extra? If I pay for everyone else’s health care with the work I do, why should I work at all? If the freedom I was promised from the property and prosperity I gain is given to others why should I continue to care about life or other’s lives? Versus the Puritan work ethic, which endures in the North East of the United States, and in Rhapsodie’s opinion, which empowers a person who works to the value of the work done, the money gained growing freedom’s power with the knowledge of the value shared with the world versus the government regulations have taken the empowerment away from the people.

  • Article II, section 3 [The President, of the United States,] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend [give advice in regards] to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; . . .
  • Article II, section 9 The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited [there is no approval mentioned] by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight [1808], but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. . . {No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.}5
  • Article II, section 8 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States [the nation, not the individualized people]; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform [as in the SAME] throughout the United States; . . . To establish a uniform [the SAME] rule of naturalization . . .
  • Article II, section 6 The Senators and Representatives shall receive a . . . compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.
  • Article I, section 8 The Congress shall have Power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, [shared in section 8 ONLY] and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Which to Rhapsodie means in accord with the theme of the whole constitution, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote [get behind, boost, not make] the general welfare, and secure [fortify, preserve, assure, (Webster’s New World Thesaurus, 1990)]] the blessings of liberty [the rights supposedly natural to man- freedom; independence; power of choice, (Webster’s New World Thesaurus, 1990)] to ourselves and our posterity [our children’s future, our descendant’s future, (Webster’s New World Thesaurus, 1990)], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Not for the judicial, legislative, or executive governors of this country, but for the people of this land now and into the future.

  • Article I, section 8 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” which was in 1824 interpreted, by the Supreme Court with a controlling and freedom diminishing definition. “The Court ruled that commerce within the states could also be regulated by national government as long as commerce substantially affected commerce involving more than one state.” (Clarkson, 2012)
READ MORE:

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: