Me and my speech.


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:

Please share your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: