We are pleased to add a new author who will be submitting articles to Conservative Musings. Stephen L. Rush is an entrepreneur who has, like most of us, been very concerned with the way this country is heading.
In that light, he has founded a new organization to make the government follow its own rules. That organization is Will of the People Constitutional Authority. .
We think that Steve brings a different approach to the problems facing this country and believe that his opinions deserve a fair hearing. It is for that reason we have asked him to submit articles and commentary.
If you agree or disagree with his ideas, that is your right in America. We want and need you to express your opinions. That blog is based on the idea that we have an exchange of ideas and we welcome your input. Please submit your comments.
Stephens first article is entitled "Never Been Done Before." Let us know what you think.
Conservative Tom
In that light, he has founded a new organization to make the government follow its own rules. That organization is Will of the People Constitutional Authority. .
We think that Steve brings a different approach to the problems facing this country and believe that his opinions deserve a fair hearing. It is for that reason we have asked him to submit articles and commentary.
If you agree or disagree with his ideas, that is your right in America. We want and need you to express your opinions. That blog is based on the idea that we have an exchange of ideas and we welcome your input. Please submit your comments.
Stephens first article is entitled "Never Been Done Before." Let us know what you think.
Conservative Tom
Never
Been Done Before
by Stephen L. Rush
When
devising the Constitution in 1787, the Founding Fathers knew they needed a
mechanism for further accountability, but was uncertain as to its eventual
course. They had written into the
Constitution a system of checks and balances with one primary gap: who governs
the government? For, Article I, Section
5 says, “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its
Proceedings”. This disciplining of
itself became an invitation to corruption.
The
Founding Fathers did not have a mechanism for holding Congress accountable
beyond voting out individuals, self-discipline, and impeachment. John Adams spoke of this form of governance
as being “made for a moral people,” and, “wholly inadequate to the government
of any other”. Daniel Webster concurred
with that assessment, saying, “It is hardly too strong to say that the
Constitution was made to guard the people against dangers of good intentions,”
and, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern”. There needed to be a way to fix corruption.
The
Founding Fathers needed the Constitution to preserve their principles long
after they were dead and gone, so their newly formed country of freedom would
not be replaced by tyrannical rulers that use power, prestige and wealth to
oppress the people. Thomas Jefferson
said, “In questions of power, then, let no man be heard [speaking] of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Constitution”. They suffered that under
King George. George Washington’s address
to the convention delegates suggested, “How can we defend our work,” if, “we
offer what we ourselves disapprove?” Therefore, “Let us raise a standard to
which the wise and honest can repair.”
The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution was the answer to rein in
evil.
Their
solution of “repair” by “the wise and honest” alluded to some potential future
need to invoke the Tenth Amendment, just as the closing in Article VII, “…done
in convention,” and, “of the Independence of the United States” alludes to
being founded on the Declaration. As it
is now understood by law, if the government were to step outside their
delegated authority, or even outside of the Constitution itself, then federal
power would become reserved to the people.
They
had no way of knowing what might bring this on, or what its outcome might
be. All they knew is that there was a
gap, and this was a way to fill that gap, even though there would no
description of its process. The
circumstance would have to define what it is, and, how it is.
The
Founding Fathers of the United States were doing something that had never been
done before. Theirs was an
experiment. As an entrepreneur, I happen
to know intimately the process of trailblazing something experimental is often
like a delivery room: messy and loud.
They did this before. Previously,
they wrote Articles of Confederacy with a very important gap: no central
government. This author believes this
was on purpose – both to heal from scars left by the Revolutionary War, and to
explore where national governing needs were the strongest.
Sometimes,
just as it is true in law, one does not always know the end from the
beginning. There is an inner trust, a
hope in faith, that although one may be sure of their course by the knowledge
of what is true and just, the outcome is sometimes left to the future to
decide. In that respect, the Founding
Fathers knew they had to pen something that would force the future down a
certain type of path – even if they did not know what that path was. They defined the boundaries of that path by
describing what it is not, and used words that specifically could be safely
interpreted in any way applicable, but only in a healthy way.
Certain
clauses were written as failsafe mechanisms.
The Tenth Amendment’s undelegated or unauthorized federal powers were as
a “trip wire” of sorts. The rights and
freedoms of the people in the First Amendment were to be immutable. Extensions of the Magna Charta were
sandwiched between them – in the other eight Bill of Rights. And, the Declaration of Independence was set
as their precedent – itself founded on the Magna Charta (due process and habeas
corpus), and the Court of Khisiarshu (right of a people to defend against
tyrannical government).
This
is the ideal framework of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers: people
participation. It is purely profound in
its articulation of ingenious triad relationships between the branches of the
federal powers themselves, as well as between the federal, state, and people’s
powers. This form, a multi-faceted and
dynamic inter-relationship, corrects oversteps into each other’s area of
authority by consent and assertion of those freedoms, rights, and powers
guaranteed in the letter of guiding law.
The
federal government cannot legally step into any position of authority for
erasure or erosion of the Bill of Rights, because that is guaranteed to the
people. The people have retracted their
consent of the governed and asserted their powers to protect and defend their
rights and freedoms under the Constitution.
Now, we have tested whether the reserved federal powers of the people
can survive a corrupt federal government that has refused to relinquish their
authority. Will that test of power hold,
or will we fall prey to an oppressive corporate-owned congress under Marshall
law?
The
people can do anything reasonable in their reserved powers to assert their
authority for the restoration of a government of the Constitution and
restitution for grievances against the people.
Its language supports at least a federal recall election, but is not
entirely silent on enforcement. The
people cannot impeach without the due process to indict for infamous crimes by
a grand jury first, according to the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, as the courts have determined, the
states cannot initiate a federal recall because that is a conflict of
powers. But, the people may enforce
their powers using a governmental body to hold other government in contempt of
its rules. A people-initiated recall has
taken place, and is legally in effect, and enforced by this Will of the People
Constitutional Authority.
We
fought for the reserved federal powers of the people, and used the law to do
it. In this case, the law recognized the
established works by various groups on behalf of the people of the United
States: Tea Party, Occupy, 99% Delegation, Main Street Suffrage, 99% Rise, and
others. The people protested in the
streets, but saw no effect. The people
assembled a Continental Congress 2.0 and publicly presented their petition of
grievances, but were ignored. The people
notified the government and sought relief in the courts, but were refused for
frivolous reasons. The people set up a
federal recall according to applicable law, but the states rejected it. So, the people authorized Will of the People
Constitutional Authority Board to hold governments in contempt of
constitutional order, and issued a warrant for their removal and ordered grand
jury to follow.
As
such, there can be no going back. What
has been done, has been done. The
federal government has fallen from favor by right of the people, and Will of
the People Constitutional Authority Board holds the federal powers of the
government. We just simply need to
enforce it by our mutual uncooperation in solidarity, as defying all national
elections by our voice and choice and sending bots and spiders to monitor and
post online any corrupt and illegal activities that would be hid from public
view, while we refuse the compulsion to believe what is supposedly done by
government for our benefit, until the recall and Constitution are affirmed.
We
choose freedom. We choose to be free,
be, like Ben Franklin said, it is hard to conceive a nation where we “live,
move, and have our being,” without, “in some degree being influenced,
guided, and governed”. But, as Thomas
Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
conscience to remain silent”. We choose
our Constitution affirmed by law of the people.
~·
Stephen L. Rush
Will
of the People Constitutional Authority
will of the people, federal recall, election,
constitution, tenth amendment, occupy, 99%, 99 rise, 99 declaration,
continental congress 2.0, tea party, bill of rights, consent of the governed,
declaration of independence, delegated powers, power of the people, freedom,
democracy, constitutional authority, liberty, corruption, washington dc, magna
carte, khisiarshu, esther, oliver cromwell, founding fathers, daniel webster,
john adams, thomas jefferson, george washington,
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.