🚀 go-pugleaf

jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:

>> Do I, or do I not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>> happiness? I guess, by your reasoning, since it's not explicitly
>> listed in the constitution then I don't. Do I, or do I not have the
>> right to labor and provide for me and my families needs? Oops, sorry
>> that not explicitly listed in the constitution either. Is not the
>> confiscation of my productivity and property infringing upon most, if
>> not all of these rights? Damn, there I go again assuming I have any
>> rights not explicitly written in the constitution. Forgive me.

> It's not that you claim rights that aren't expressly mentioned (which
> you do, BTW), but rather that you claim them in an absolute manner that
> contradicts specific provisions of the Constitution.

Then Mr. Adams we appear to have to very diametrically 
opposed understanding of the purpose of the constitution. 
Are you contending that the constitution explicitly grants 
rights to the people or, is it a limit on what already individually
held inalienable rights the government can't interfere with? It 
is in fact the latter point that is more correct. The only thing 
the constitution grants is limited and specific power to the 
federal government not, contrary to your contentions, limited 
and specific rights to individuals.

AMENDMENT X

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. 

It would clearly be observed from the above that the states and
individuals are higher in the chain of power contrary to the
presumption of the government at present. Once again my point 
is made: omission is not permission.

                                      PREAMBLE

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 
the GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings 
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Emphasis added)


                                        SECTION 8.

Powers of Congress 

The Congress shall have the power 

1. 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; but all 
duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout 
the United States:  (Emphasis added)

Please give me your interpretation of "general welfare."

In the original drafting of the constitution there was no bill 
of rights. It was and had always been a matter of fact that 
the people held the all rights such as the right to keep and 
bare arms, the right to own property, the right to labor and 
receive compensation for same etc. etc. In a nation that  
was founded on sovereign individual liberty such specifics 
were considered by the founding fathers inalienable, i.e. not 
granted by kings, rulers or governments and their legislators, 
and therefore never something that, on principle, need be 
specifically enumerated or addressed. Even though it clearly, 
as cited above, was limited by restricting the government to 
only promoting the "general welfare." However, there was a
significantly loud outcry, by those that for one reason or 
another had the foresight to predict, and successfully I might 
add, to specifically add the specific limits  in the bill of rights 
to insure protection to the already held rights that would, 
based on their personal experience, be first to come under
infringement. The bottom line is we have always had these 
rights and were always meant to have these rights regardless 
of whether or not they are specifically enumerated in the
constitution. Your argument therefore is meritless in respect 
to the point that I improperly claim rights that aren't specifically
mentioned in the constitution. 

I find it most interesting how easily these arguments frequently 
fall into either semantical and/or, it said so, didn't say so,
technical (mis)interpretations when separated from the intent and
spirit of the law and constitution. There are no semantical or
technical arguments to be made when one understands the 
spirit and intent of the founding fathers and the constitution as
expressed in their writings. 

>>The intent of the legislators IS the law.

> That's silly.  That can't be true because there are lots of intents.
> Legislators have many reasons for voting for a bill, and it's hard to
> know what they all are, much less which ones should win out.

Least of which is whether or not it infringes on the rights of the
people. Not to mention if it promotes the "general welfare." If 
the present legislators were held to the scrutiny of this principle
then we would be far, far better off.

If there are that many intents or reasons behind the legislation 
of the point of confusion or obfuscation, then it should be 
declared void for vagueness right then and there. Not to mention
whether or not it properly falls under "general welfare."

Then what is the purpose of preamble in proposed legislation?

Example:

                                         H. R. 3039

To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity 
for families by repealing the income tax,abolishing the 
Internal Revenue Service and enacting a national retail 
sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. 

Interesting that they would include the term "To promote 
freedom." Are they admitting that the current system doesn't? 
If so, since when has it been within their power to not promote
freedom? i.e. "general welfare."

>> The constitution means nothing without the understanding of the intent. 
>> And to this point their writings, such as the Federalist papers and the 
>> Declaration of Independence, that express their intent supersede 
>> mere status of ratified law.

>Then what's the point of making law?  How about a signed piece of
> paper directing interested parties to their various writings?

The point of making law, at least under a constitutional 
government, is to set forth specific rules for the enactment 
and enforcement of policies as well as rules to provide 
access to and remedy under equal justice. Basically laws 
are nothing more than rules. It is the objective of the game 
that is of fundamental importance. To which the rules 
must attempt to fairly apply to all participating as well as 
promoting the objective of the game. They are a means 
to an ends, not an ends to a means.The objective of this 
game, if you will, is; the protection and promotion of liberty 
in the presence of a limited government. If these laws (rules) 
and policies are not within the spirit and intent of the 
constitution or it's specifically stated authority; if they would
infringe, as most do at present, interfere with or diminish in 
any way our inalienable rights, then they are unconstitutional.
Period. 

As to the singed piece of paper, that's not a bad idea. 
Personally I would codify the intent, either by reference 
or direct text, within the text of the law. And all legislation 
must put forth clearly the intent of the law, and definition 
of terms. And let the juries judge whether or not the law 
and it's terms are properly enforced pursuant to it's 
specifically stated intent, definition of terms and ultimately to
constitutional intent and spirit. I believe we shouldn't have to, 
but perhaps it would be a stronger deterrent to tyranny.  In 
that light I have thought seriously as to doing just that. 
Furthermore in doing so if one attempted to repeal or 
amend the law then one would know clearly what they 
are giving up. Finally, if you the courts or anyone is not 
interested in their writings, otherwise known as their intent, 
then how can you or anyone profess, in any degree, to 
understanding the constitution? I assert that you can't 
without doing so.

>> Do you contend that such terms where arbitrarily chosen with no regards to
>> there exact and specific meaning? The answer is in their writings. Why
>> did they go through the effort of documenting their arguments and
>> debates? Would it not be for the purpose of setting the foundation of
>> principles and future interpretations? 

> Maybe, maybe not.  If you're referring to the Federalist Papers, they
> were basically propaganda designed to convince people to accept and to
> ratify the Constitution.  They were items of rhetoric, not interpretive
> aids.  

So what you are saying here is that their "rhetoric" and 
"propaganda," as you have so referred to them, are not, 
 either directly or indirectly, a manifestation their intent? If what 
you say is true then the people must have agreed with 
their "rhetoric" because it promised to fulfill the stated 
intent. If the founding fathers thought enough of their 
writings to present them as "propaganda" to garnish 
support prior to ratification then how would it be wrong 
or improper to rely on them after the ratification? Or are 
you accusing them of false advertising?

>> So are we stuck with your courts and legislators arbitrary Simon 
>> say's or didn't say perversions of the intent? Worse yet at our 
>> expense? Face it Adams, it's all coming to an end. Feel free to 
>> cling to the corrupted courts and there rulings. I hope they have 
>> promised you the life style to which you wish to become 
>> accustomed for they surely offer no hope or relief for
>> me and my family, if not altogether the countries future. 

> Hey, no complaints from me.

I thought not. 

Thanks for your candid response.

Bill Watts



Statutes levying taxes should be construed, in case of
doubt, against the government and in favor of the citizen.

Miller v. Gearoing, 258 F. 225

Harry Browne for President
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/