Downfall Pt 7

Part 7



Article I is the part of the Constitution that deals with the legislative branch of the government, which includes the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The first sections of Article I outline the legislative branch and who is eligible to hold seats and term limits.

Section 3 is the first part I would like to pay particular attention to.

Section 3. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof..."

Section 3 of the Constitution was written in such a way so that the individual state legislatures had the power to select, and, if need be, remove senators from office. They wrote it that way so that the states would have some say in how the federal government created legislation that would affect them. It was one of the many checks and balances that our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.

James Madison states in Federalist Papers #51 that,
"The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit."

Notice that he states different modes of election. Do we have that now when the public votes for both Senators and Congressmen? It is one little tweaking of the Constitution that has caused ripple effects to pass on so that our Senate is no longer beholden to the states but instead to special interest groups.

Section 3 was changed by the 17th amendment when they made the election of senators by popular vote. That took away any say the states had in the function of the federal government. Since states rights have been diminished the balance of power has been altered leaving the states without any say in the operation of the federal government.

The 17th amendment could be considered unconstitutional in itself because of Article V, Clause 3. That states that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." When Senators do not follow the will of their constituents, which is to say the states themselves, their constituents are being deprived of representation and should be able to recall or replace their Senators. A fine example of this is Senate Resolution 2611 which grants amnesty to illegal aliens. A majority of the populace want stricter control over illegal immigration, yet their Senators voted to relax laws regarding illegal immigrants. If Section 3 were still functional the states could recall those Senators who voted for this legislation and have them replaced with someone who would carry out the will of the people they represent.

Finally, if you want to conclusive proof that the founding fathers put Section 3 of Article I in the Constitution, read what Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist Paper #9,

"The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government".

Section 6 of Article I states that "Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law."

Before I go any further I would like to quickly comment on law. I have tried to read some of the legislation our elected officials pass into law. There is a quote by James Madison that I think these elected officials should remember when they pass any laws. It states.

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.

So when our legislators pass new laws, they should be able to be read and understood by those of us they affect. It is no wonder that they can hide so much fraud and waste in a bill that cannot be understood by anyone that reads it.

Back to Section 6, what that basically means is they should be paid for the work their services according to law. I would like to see the law that states that they can vote themselves pay raises whenever they see fit. I would like to see the law where it says they can vote themselves retirement and medical packages that are far better than that of the average American. I sure wish I could walk into my bosses office tell him I am giving myself a raise and better benefits and he is going to pay for it, especially if I am not doing my job according to the rules outlined for my performance.

The next section, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power, "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization". With all the attention focused on illegal immigration today, and the passage of Senate Resolution 2611 it has become apparent that they have been negligent in their duty on this issue. I would like for you to read a quote by Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist Papers #15,
"Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation."

Taking that in mind we already have laws regarding what is considered legal immigration. The problem lies not with the laws, but in the enforcement of them. Congress can pass as many laws as they want, but if they are not enforced they are nothing more than mere suggestions, as Hamilton stated. And with Senate Resolution 2611 these lawbreakers will be given amnesty for their crime, and the door will be opened for more immigrants to flood our borders.

Also that clause states that it shall be a uniform rule of naturalization. I have firsthand experience with this issue. My wife is a naturalized Filipina. She petitioned her sister six years ago and is still waiting for a visa to be issued for her sister. Why then is our Senate voting to grant amnesty to people who enter this country illegally, yet those of us who are following existing laws are being punished by long waits? Does that sound uniform to you? Me either!

Section 8 also states that Congress shall have the power to;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Are we not in a war now? Was that war ever officially declared by Congress, or was it started by a president with a ulterior motive?

James Madison said; "The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. " So why are we at war with Iraq and the terrorists in the middle east now?

Also do we not also have an annual defense budget that is paid for by our taxes? Yet the Constitution declares that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." So why do we continue to pay taxes for standing armies? I understand that in the world we live in we need a well equipped military, ready to defend our nation, but the Constitution should be amended to allow for it. As it stands now continued taxation to support a military goes against what the constitution says.

Section 8 also states Congress shall have the power to;
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

How long has it been since the Congress called forth the militia? Do we even have a militia? This is what James Madison said about the militia, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country“. So I ask you again, do we have a militia? Some would say the Reserves and the National Guard are our militia, but they are paid members of the armed forces. The militia at the time of the writing of the Constitution consisted of armed citizens who fought for their country. With that definition wouldn’t it now be a good time to call forth the militia, with the invasion of all these illegal immigrants. These illegal immigrants, which also include violent drug runners and gang members. Are we not being invaded? Isn't that what the militia was for, to repel invasions? Then why hasn't Congress called them into action in the defense of their country?

Section 9 covers taxation. One of the clauses says that;
"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

That was changed by 16th amendment. The 16th amendment states:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That basically gives the Congress the right to tax us at will and for whatever they deem fit. Daniel Webster said that,

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy"

That is a basic overview of Article I of our Constitution. I would suggest, as I will at the end of each section, that you read the document in its entirety for yourselves. As you can already see there are some discrepancies between how our founding fathers envisioned our government and how it exists today. These discrepancies might appear minor but they have serious implications on a larger scale that will become apparent as I go on in later articles.