What If Constitution Meant Agreed-Upon Things When Ratified ?

Any Diversion Today Indicates Unconstitutional Acts

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  So I have these two stories here about Obamacare, a pair of rulings yesterday, one judge saying that the subsidy funding method is illegal, unconstitutional, and another saying, [mocking] “Oh, come on, it’s like ordering a Domino’s pizza.”  I’m not making this up.  [mocking] “So what if I ordered Domino’s and Pizza Hut shows up?  It’s the same thing.  I’m still getting a pizza.  It still has pepperoni on it.  It still has sauce on it.  So why do I care where the pizza came from?”  Well, you care where the pizza came from because you chose Domino’s for a specific reason.  You care where the subsidy shows up because we have a system of written laws.  We don’t have an ad hoc system.  We don’t have fiat government, meaning at will, make it up as you go, although Obama does that often.  We’re supposed to have written laws and what’s known as the rule of law.

There’s another point to be made here about these dueling judgments from different federal judges, folks.  If there is an original understanding of the U.S. Constitution, and there was, and if there were no gray areas or question marks that could arise from that original understanding — let’s be honest, there were some even among the framing generation — but most of them were worked out or adjudicated in a manner consistent with how the propagandists that sold the American public the Constitution said they would work out.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

Of course, once you get past the framing generation, it’s over.  It’s a mad dash to pervert and corrupt everything, for some people, a growing number of people as we go through the history of the U.S. post-Constitution.  But if it could be agreed upon that there was a solitary, solo, single point of view when it came to original intent and understanding and ratified intent, which is the most important thing, then how could, in the aftermath of that, hundreds of years later, how could there then be such a divergence of opinion on the same constitutional matters?  How could there be such a divergence of opinions, especially when it comes to legal minds and legal circles and judges that are supposed to take an oath and adjudicate these things in consistency, in harmony with said Constitution?

I don’t want to get verbose and I don’t want to get too complicated here because then I’ll get phone calls at the end of the hour and people yelling at me saying: You’re not explaining that right; I don’t understand it.  The simplest way to explain this is that there is no longer a written understanding, and there is no single understanding that can be referred to.  Instead, what we have is an ever-changing, ever-evolving litany of what we call precedent.  Mike, what is precedent?  Precedent is what a judge says the clause of the constitution in question, he is writing an opinion on what he believes the clause says and how it is to be applied.  Once you have a precedent — and the earliest horrible precedents that were set, the most famous, of course is the McCulloch v. Maryland case.  Again, I don’t want to get too complicated.  That’s 1817.  Once a precedent is set, what has happened is, rather than referring to the actual Constitution and the ratifying debates of what the framers intended and what those that ratified the document thought they were ratifying and thought it meant, instead, over time legalists, lawyers and what have you, have been taught that ratified intent doesn’t really matter.  Instead, we’re going to rely on what previous jurists have said about the fabled document.  That’s how we’re going to form our opinions.

Fast forward to 2014 and you have this mélange of constitutionalism we have today.  We shouldn’t be in disagreement over matters as important as this.  There ought to be but one understanding, and everyone ought to know what it is, that way no one attempts to contravene it.  Of course, that’s a perfect world and we don’t live in a perfect world.  We’re not perfect.  The only thing perfect in this world or on this earth is God and our Lord Jesus Christ.  Those are the only perfect things there are.  So if we’re not dealing with that and we’re dealing with the written law of man, then we have a major problem here.  The problem is not going to be fixed by having different elections, putting more people in the ballot box.  These are foundational issues.  They’re huge and they’re not easily addressed.  This is the problem.  Because they’re not easily addressed, the remedy is elusive.

How could we work this out?  It seems to me that the simplest way to work any of this out, and the simplest way to arrive at — even if we desire to have: Okay, we’ll just jettison the founders.  We’ll get rid of them.  How many of you vote to get rid of the founders?  We’re going to vote them off the island.  Let’s just say we totally ignore that there ever was a framing, there ever was a founding.  It doesn’t matter.  We’re smarter than them and we have iPhones and computers and television that goes around the world, satellites, microwave dinners.  We’re smarter than they are.  We ought to be able to have our own set of laws and our own constitution written by us to guide us.  Then the simplest way to arrive at that is to call another convention of the states and then produce another document and get it ratified.  Actually, that’s probably the most complicated measure because we can’t even get a convention of states to amend and force things like balanced budgets.  It’s maybe not as simple as it seems.

The other way to do this would be to surrender the concept of a federal union, which most of you have already surrendered anyways.  You may not realize it, but you have.  Certainly your fellow citizens that are not plugged in to the study of ancient American — and I say ancient because that’s what it must appear to most average Americans — have no concept of these ideas of a federal system and a federal union.  We could then just say: Look, we don’t really have a written Constitution any longer.  We’re not going to hold Congress’s feet to the fire on it.  We’re not even going

to hold our king, I mean our president’s feet to the fire.  We’re just going to let him act like a king.  We’re just going to kind of pretend like the preceding 226 years never really happened.  Our magisterial national ministers will now be allowed to legislate on anything and in any manner that they wish to.  The existence of the several states must then give way.  They will be totally subordinate and totally submissive to the will and the edicts and the rulings and the laws that emanate from the national capital.  We can then just buy admission and buy affirmative action — no, I don’t mean affirmative action like that, just affirming — we could then just affirm that we have a national, consolidated blob government and that’s what we’re stuck with and let’s just move on.

We already basically have the latter anyways, so all that is necessary to bring this forth is just to admit it.  Of course, then that would require in all the state legislatures to then admit, by some legislative act, that they really don’t exist anymore.  They only exist in order to carry forth the will of our consolidated, almighty, national rulers.  You may choose to carry forth the will of the national ministers in a robust manner or you may choose to carry forth in an anemic manner, but you must carry it forth.  That’s basically what we have today anyway.  Of course, the third way is to say: Well, I don’t choose one because I don’t think it’s going to work and the endeavor is too large.  I don’t choose two because I don’t want to live under a blob of America, national ministerial system.  So I choose three, rethinking the American Union.  Three, to me, holds out the hope of producing the best results for the people, and certainly the best results for the people who wish to practice self-government, which is a very small remnant.

[/private]

We are remnants, you and I.  There are a lot of people that like to talk about self-government, folks.  They don’t really believe it.  They have no desire to return to it and their actions tell you all you need to know to prove that point in your own mind.

This site is supported by your Founders Pass memberships and purchases in the Founders Tradin’ Post, can Mike count on your support today? Shop the Tradin’ Post and become a Founders Pass member.

When we have these divergent rulings on Obamacare, again, you can look at it and say — here’s a headline from Yahoo.  Just consider this: “A Federal Judge Used Pizza To Explain Why A Key Provision Of Obamacare Is Legal.”  Really, a pizza?  Really, seriously?  New York Times: “New Questions on Health Law as Rulings on Subsidies Differ.”  This is kind of like the word of God.  God hasn’t changed his mind.  God said what he said, told prophets, apostles, his only begotten son to orate it and then told others to write it down and then live by it.  God hasn’t changed, we have, but God hasn’t.  Well, the words — as much as I would hate to admit this but I will — the words of the Affordable Care Act of 2009 haven’t changed.  They’re still as rotten and as aggressively destructive as they were when they were passed and signed by Obama in April 2009.  So what has changed?  Well, man’s opinion of those words and as those words have now been implemented.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

AbbyMcGinnis

See Full Bio