Should there be limits to:
1. Borrowing Money?
Article 1, Section 8 of the USConsititution delegates specific and limited powers to the United States. All other powers are reserved to the states and the people. Paragraph 2 of this Section reads…
“The Congress shall have Power to borrow money on the credit of the United States”
Does that wording mean that the Congress can borrow the country into bankruptcy? What would common sense say? One of the many reasons for the nasty split from England was the arbitrary manner in which the crown and its representatives forced financial burdens, taxes and debt on the thirteen colonies/states. Will it take a specific amendment to the USConstitution limiting debt to a sum certain or a relative percent to stop the reckless federal debt buildup? Why is there no common sense among the elected representatives and senators of the US? The American Basic is simple - borrow and repay. No perpetual debt buildup; no continual spending in excess of resources. Debt limits and debt repayment are an American Basic. It is time to require them in the USConstitution.
2. Staying in Office Way Too Long?
There was no term limit wording in the original Constitution. Why? The founders believed in self discipline and in the rotation of representative offices among local leaders and gentry. Even though the concept was discussed, the wording was deemed to be unnecessary because the founders were gentlemen and gentlemen did not self impose themselves ad nauseam through a corrupt ingratiation process. The founders did not envision a Ted Kennedy (47 years); Richard Byrd (50 years); Charles Rangel (38 years) and John McCain (27 years) making a career out of occupying these positions. These fools are like zombies from the Living Dead movies. There is a dope from Pennsylvania (29 years) who has even switched parties twice to get elected. What better proof can a man offer of his guile and arrogance than to think he is not replaceable? Term limits are an American Basic. They now need to be an amendment to the USConstitution.
3. Dual Citizenship?
Where in the USConstituion is there any enabling wording for dual citizenship? Can you be an American and a Canadian citizen? American and Israeli? American and German? How many passports can an American hold? Here is the wording of the US Oath of Citizenship:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
“So help me God” is now optional as are the phrases about bearing arms and performing noncombatant service. When a new citizen renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign state, what are they doing with dual citizenship and multiple passports? It is an American Basic that USCitizenship is unique, requires uncompromising fidelity which means the citizen forsakes all other allegiances.
Sensible borrowing with repayment, self imposed term limits and no dual citizenship are American Basics. They are examples of setting and adhering to limits. The federal government in the human form of very self centered, prideful and greedy individuals has violated each of these basics. The power rests with the people not the government. This federal government at its three levels – executive, legislative and judicial is violating these and many other American Basics. On November 2, 2010 it is time for the taxpaying citizens to require elected representatives to honor American Basics. It's fundamental.
4 comments:
Not only were term limits deemed unnecessary, the Founders looked at holding office as a civic duty, where a solid citizen would devote a part of his life to public service, then go back to his pursuit of happiness; farming, trader, merchant, etc.
I was at candidate's night a few years ago, and asked the candidates for Congress in my 11th Dist. what they would do to uphold the Constitution, specifically the 10th amendment.
Neither knew what the 10th amendment was.
Term limits? Never happen.Ask someone what they are. Smart money says 8 out of 10 don't have a clue.
At a recent golf outing involving Dads and thier sons, the name Benedict Arnold came up. A 20 something young man said"Who is Benedict Arnold?" I have since asked 10 other younger people the same question. Only one knew the correct answer, although another young man did say that he thought that Arnold was killed in a duel with A. Hamilton on the same day that Nathan Hale shot Lincoln.
Makes one weep for the future,doesn't it?
To the author of the Fundementals: good article...thought provoking! To the other commenter aka Patrick Flynn: so, what is your point? Dah?.....bring it on, if you can!
To the author: Point 1) the United States can borrow money on the credit of the United States. For good or for bad, the statement is what it is and unfortunately defaults to the interpretation and integrity of the "people" in power. Point 2) Term limits are necessary and the populous/both parties would agree. Term limits are needed. Throw them out of office after 8 years. This should truly be part of a National Agenda. The citizenry of both parties should get behind this issue and throw those bastards out of office after two terms. Point 3) Dual Citizenship: Choose a country and pledge your loyalty...that is it...no exceptions. Honor your heritage for sure....but pledge your loyalty to the country you choose you live in and choose to be loyal to!
APPARENTLY VERONICA HAS BEEN HANGING AROUND JUGHEAD TOO LONG. THE POINT IS THAT TERM LIMITS WILL NEVER OCCUR. NEITHER PARTY WHEN IN POWER WILL VOLUNTARILY CEDE THAT POWER WHEN IN CONTROL.THE SYSTEM WORKS TOO WELL FOR THEM, ALBEIT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE REPUBLIC.TO HAVE TERM LIMITS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION,MEANING BOTH HOUSE OF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE IN FAVOR , THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO SING THE BILL AND IT WOULD NEED TO BE RATIFIED BY 2/3 OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES. REPEAT: NEVER HAPPEN.
THE OTHER POINT IS, IF YOU CAN GRASP IT, IS THAT THE POPULACE HAS BEEN "DUMBED DOWN" BY THE GOVT. SCHOOL SYSTEM TO THE POINT THAT THEY NO LONGER RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.THE BENEDICT ARNOLD ANECDOTE WAS SIMPLY AN ILLUSTRATION OF UNEDUCATED OUR CULTURE HAS BECOME TO OUR HISTORY, AND HOW THINGS WERE SUPPOSED TO WORK.
ANOTHER POINT: WHICH TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IN RECENT WESTERN CIVILIZATION APPROVED OF:
ABORTION
EUTHANASIA
DISMANTLING CAPITALISM
STEM CELL RESEARCH
PAGANISM(STATE AS GOD)
ANSWER: THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IN THE U.S.A. AND NAZI'S IN GERMANY
BY THE WAY, BENEDICT ARNOLD WAS AN ACCOMPLISHED AMERICAN GENERAL IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR WHO BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY. HIS NAME, LIKE JUDAS ISCSARIOT, HAS BECOME SYNONYMOUS WITH TRAITOROUS BEHAVIOR.MAYBE YOU CAN DISCUSS THIS WITH ARCHIE AND BETTY AT THE MALT SHOP AFTER CLASS, AND LEAVE THIS WEBSITE TO THE BIG PEOPLE.
Post a Comment