Have you ever told a lie so many times that you begin to believe it yourself? If so, you’ll know that there is a gradual transition that takes place. First, you recognize that you are lying; second, you begin to question whether you are actually lying or telling the truth; then finally, the lie becomes your truth. Unless those you’ve lied to dig into the lie, investigate the facts for themselves, the lie will be accepted by them as the truth as well.

The problem with lies is that, over time, it becomes increasingly more difficult to get people to accept that they’ve been lied to. It is even harder for people to accept that they’ve been lied to if they have built up their entire belief system upon what they’ve been told; as is the case regarding our ‘wonderful’ system of government. People may examine current affairs with a critical eye, but rarely will they turn that critical eye inward to examine the system that they put so much trust into. Seeking the truth in that regard is too uncomfortable for most; it threatens to shatter their illusion of reality; which is why so many refuse to do it.

People today can accept that their government does things they do not like. Yet, that is about as far as they are willing to go; placing the blame on those belonging to the other political party. If you were to ask those from either side of the political spectrum why they support a system that allows for the ‘other side’ to do the things they don’t like, you can almost see their eyes glaze over, and you almost expect a big TILT sign to light up across their forehead.

At a fundamental level, people realize that the constitution created our current system of government; yet what the document actually says, or how it came into existence, is of little importance to people these days. What is important is how they can use the system of government it established to achieve certain goals; known as political party platforms. Rarely does the topic of restraining government enter into political discussions these days; all you hear is how to restrain the ‘other’ party so that your party can move forward with its agenda.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret. I derive an almost perverse sort of pleasure watching YouTube videos in which the general public is asked specific questions about that structure and nature of their government. Whenever I watch these videos, my mind often recalls that Einstein quote: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the former. The width and scope of people’s ignorance regarding what the constitution actually says, and how it came into existence, is mind boggling.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming people for this lack of knowledge; at least not per se; it is what they were taught. However, I do blame them when they refuse to accept that what they were taught is either incomplete, or outright lies. Twenty years ago, I was just as ignorant as those people being interviewed in those videos; what changed is the fact that I was willing to accept that what I’d been taught was not the truth; or at least the whole truth. The most you can expect from people today is a basic outline of the structure of our government, while maybe a rudimentary understanding of the, supposed, checks and balances written into the constitution. Anything more than that and you may as well be asking people to explain the geothermal properties of the Earth’s core.

If you cannot explain, with any degree of understanding, what the constitution actually says, or how it came into existence, then how are you to know whether or not those you elect are acting within the limitations that document supposedly places upon them, or whether or not your system of government serves the function our ancestors believed government should serve – the securing of your rights and liberty. If all you believe is that government exists, and that our system is the best the world has ever seen, then all you’re doing is repeating what you’ve been taught; not what you’ve learned through a careful study of the document, or the history of how it came into existence.

Again, I’m not blaming you; at least not per se. I only ask that you open your minds to the possibility that what you were taught is not the truth; that you’ve been conditioned, or indoctrinated, into accepting our system as the best the world has ever seen; without ever questioning that the purpose you believe it should serve is a well-fabricated lie to prevent you from resisting it and regaining the rights it has deprived you of.

If you want to understand the constitution, you have to do more than just read it; you have to dissect it Clause by Clause to understand what power each of those Clauses gives to government. To explain what I mean by dissecting the constitution, I would like to take 4 specific sections of that document and go into an in depth discussion of how they have allowed for government to accumulate so much power; at the expense of your rights and liberty.

The General Welfare Clause
The General Welfare Clause of the constitution is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1; although the general welfare is also referred to in the Preamble. This clause states: Congress shall have Power 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…

The General Welfare Clause is part of the Taxing and Spending Clause, and as such it explains one of the reasons Congress is granted the power to tax and spend – to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. The problem is, the term general welfare is vague and unclear as to what constitutes the general welfare of the United States.

Although I have grown to despise the authors of the constitution, one thing I haven’t done is fail to admire their intelligence; their craftiness if you will. Many of them were lawyers, and as such they were familiar with how to draft legal documents that could be, either airtight, or as full of holes as a block of Swiss Cheese.

I’m no lawyer, not by a long shot, but even I can see the loophole the term ‘general welfare’ creates. The drafters of the constitution could have easily closed that loophole by inserting wording into the constitution that stated: The general welfare of the United States shall consist of; and then gone on to list the other enumerated powers. However, they did not do that; quite likely for the same reason they opposed inserting the word ‘expressly’ into the 10th Amendment when the Bill of Rights was being written. They wanted those loopholes in there; to be exploited by the government any time it wanted to do something that wasn’t among the powers specifically found in Article 1, Section 8.

I’d be willing to bet that if I asked 100 people to define what constitutes the general welfare, I probably would get 100 different answers; with none of them being the same. Some might say that the general welfare is to create jobs, others might say it is to provide for the needy, while others still might say it is to keep our country safe against foreign threats. That is EXACTLY why the General Welfare Clause was written the way it was; it is hard to pin down what the general welfare consists of.

In 1791 Thomas Jefferson said this about the term, ‘general welfare’; To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

Although James Madison played a leading role in the drafting of the constitution, he was, for all intents and purposes, a weasel; shifting his opinion to fit the times. Madison was one of the staunchest opponents of inserting the word ‘expressly’ into the 10th Amendment, yet in 1792 he spoke out against a bill in Congress that he felt was not a justified by the General Welfare Clause. In 1792 Congress proposed a bill that would benefit the Cod Fisheries along the New England coastline. Madison opposed that bill, stating: If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

If you read Madison’s words carefully, you will see that much of what he felt was not to be considered as part of the general welfare is what people today believe is part of the general welfare; education, providing for the poor, and most importantly, the most minute object of policing. I’m sure, even with his wish washiness, had Congress or the President proposed establishing the DEA, the BATF, the FBI, or any of the other regulatory agencies we suffer under today, Madison would have found them to be unjustified by the term general welfare.

Yet show these facts to the average voter today and it goes in one ear, and out the other; without even registering that they have been taught to believe a lie.

The Necessary & Proper Clause
The Necessary & Proper Clause is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, and states: [The Congress shall have Power…] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If you think of the General Welfare and Necessary and Proper Clauses as bookmarks, they frame the specifically enumerated powers found in Clauses 2-17; rendering them useless. That is exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote about the General Welfare Clause in 1791.

If there was any doubt that the General Welfare Clause was a specific, and individual grant of power; granting government far reaching powers beyond those found in Clauses 2-17, the Necessary and Proper Clause obliterated all remaining doubts. How can there be any limitations upon Congress when they can enact any law that they deem necessary and proper?

The Necessary & Proper Clause, or as I prefer to call it, the Necessary and Proper Loophole, was exploited soon after our system of government went into operation. Soon after our government went into operation, the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, began scheming as to how to achieve his goals; which if you had read the debates from the Constitutional Convention, you would have seen that his goal was to establish an elective monarchy; similar to the government they had just fought a war to free themselves from.

Hamilton believed that for our government to be respected, and possibly feared, it had to establish its credit; and to do so required that we establish a national bank. Just as Great Britain had the bank of England, Hamilton wanted a central bank for America. The problem was, although Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to coin money, it does not grant Congress the power to establish a bank.

No problem thought Hamilton; there was always the Necessary & Proper Clause; which he exploited to the fullest. Of course, he butted heads with Thomas Jefferson over this; with Jefferson taking he literal definition of the word necessary, while Hamilton viewed it as open for interpretation; setting the precedent for implied powers; something Madison himself had referred to when he opposed the insertion of the word ‘expressly’ into the 10th Amendment.

Basically, the argument between Jefferson and Hamilton came down to this. Jefferson believed the word ‘necessary’ meant that it was impossible to accomplish a specific power without being able to pass other ‘necessary’ laws to do so. For instance, if I tell you to build a house for me, but do not give you the power to buy lumber, nails, paint, et cetera, you could not perform the assigned task; therefore, buying lumber, nails and paint is necessary to accomplish your task.

Hamilton, on the other hand, believed that ‘necessary’ meant that it made the accomplishment of a specific power easier. To continue my house analogy, under the Hamiltonian viewpoint, if I told you to build me a house, it authorized you to go to Sears and purchase all manner of power tools, toolboxes, and other sundry items not absolutely necessary to accomplish the task assigned to you. Unfortunately for us, George Washington sided with Hamilton, the precedent was set, and all manner of misfortune has fallen upon us because of it.

Now, as a result of these two Clauses of the constitution, there is almost nothing that government cannot deem either necessary, or in the general welfare of the country; leaving us subject to all manner of infringements upon our rights and liberty; the very things government is supposed to secure to us.

The Treaty Clause
The Treaty Clause of the constitution is found in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, and states: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. At first glance, that seems harmless enough, however that is because you are not aware of what exactly it says; what wide ranging powers that actually gives both the Executive and the Senate.

First of all, remember, those men who wrote the constitution were lawyers; and as such, every word they wrote has a specific meaning; an intent. So, when this clause states that treaties may be passed with the concurrence of ‘two-thirds of the Senators present’ does that not strike you as odd in regards to the phrasing? Would it not have sounded better had it been written to say: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate concurred? Why say two thirds of the Senators present? I’ll tell you why, because a treaty could be passed with only the President and 3 Senators; all it would take is 2 of the 3 Senators to concur.

While that may sound a bit hokey, it may not seem to be that big a deal; until you factor in what Article 6, Section 2 of the constitution says: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (My emphasis)

So, not only can a treaty bind a country, it can also supersede the laws of a state, or diminish the rights and liberty of the people; all because it becomes the supreme law of the Land. Now, I will tie all these up in a nice little bow for you when I discuss my final topic; the federal judiciary.

The Judiciary
The problem with the judiciary is that, unlike the Executive and Legislative Branches, it is not clearly defined by the constitution; all the constitution says about its structure is: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. So, even the constitution did not say whether this ‘Supreme Court’ should consist of one judge, or multiple judges; it leaves the organization of the entire judiciary in the hands of Congress.

There are many problems with that, first and foremost being that, if the constitution was written and ratified by representatives of the people, (which I don’t believe is the case), then for Congress to add to the powers, or alter the structure of the judiciary, they would be amending the constitution; which Congress can not do without sending such changes to the States for ratification. Yet they went ahead and did it anyway when they wrote the Judiciary Act of 1789.

One of the things Congress has done is to establish, not only a Supreme Court, but establish other such inferior courts it has deemed necessary. We know those courts today as Circuit Courts and District Courts; but make no mistake about it, they are all part of the ‘FEDERAL’ government. If you are found guilty of violating a federal law, your case is going to be heard in a federal court; basically, because the government is the plaintiff, and you are the defendant; accused of violating one of the laws the government has enacted.

It amazes me that people can believe that these federal judges, including the Justices who sit on the Supreme Court, are unbiased; yet at the same time arguing over whether or not these judges should be appointed by Republicans or Democrats. Can you not see the contradiction in that? If these judges were truly unbiased, if they only served JUSTICE, then it would not matter whether they were appointed by a Democrat or a Republican!

Secondly, and this coincides with what I just said, if the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if judges are bound by it, then their decisions should be considered final; all things being fair and just, that is. Therefore, if a decision by the Supreme Court is final, and in accordance to what the constitution says, then the only way that decision can be overturned is if the constitution is amended. Yet the Supreme Court has overturned its own decisions over 200 times! How is that even possible if they are adhering to what the constitution says?

Another thing people fail to understand about the judiciary is the fact that they are not accountable to us; to the people. We elect the President; we elect the members of the House and the Senate; although the Senate was originally established to represent the individual states. We, at least, have a modicum of control and representation in those two branches of government. That is not true with the judiciary, they are beyond our control; we cannot recall them, nor can we punish them if they act outside their delegated powers.

In a letter to William Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson explained the danger of an independent federal judiciary: You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

The purpose of a judge is to ensure that the law is upheld in their courtroom, not decide what the law means. Yet the judiciary has taken it upon itself to do just that; not only that, but to expand the powers of the various branches, and its own. It began early on, when the Marshall court established the concept of judicial review, and it has been going on ever since.

Remember how I discussed the General Welfare Clause? Well, the SCOTUS undertook to define what is meant by the term general welfare. In 1936 the Court held that the general welfare language constituted a ‘separate’ grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not directly granted regulatory control. (See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1) So, basically what that means is, the Supreme Court handed Congress a blank check of authority in their interpretation, or construction as it is properly called, of the General Welfare Clause.

And, do you recall how destructive the Treaty Clause was; well, the courts have upheld treaties that violated the rights of the people and the sovereignty of the states. Oh, you don’t believe me? Well, let’s see what I can dig up to prove you wrong.

In 1913 Congress passed a Migratory Bird Act; which made the hunting of certain migratory birds illegal. A fellow by the name of Tracey Shauver was arrested in Arkansas for violating federal law, and when his case went to court, he held that under the protection of the 10th Amendment, only the states could make the hunting of birds within state borders illegal. The judge hearing the case held: The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional. The court struck down the law for violating the rights held by the States, and the States alone.

Roughly a year later, another individual was arrested in Arkansas for shooting Migratory birds; after Congress had passed another Migratory Bird Act. The defendant used the same argument that had acquitted Shauver; that the law violated the 10th Amendment. Only this time, the defendant was found guilty. Do you want to know why? The defendant was found guilty because, in between the Shauver case and his, the government had entered into a treaty with Great Britain and Canada; protecting those migratory birds. So this time, the court was bound to find him guilty, for the new Migratory Bird Act was backed up by international treaty.

So, for those of you out there who think that if the government enters into a treaty banning the private ownership of firearms, that it will not apply to you; hold up in court…think again! That is why the treaty making authority is so dangerous, and why the federal judiciary only cares about enforcing the law as government sees it. Your rights, your liberty, mean nothing to these people; and they have proven time and time again that you are a peasant who must obey, or face the consequences.

In doing so the courts have violated their own decision, as found in Sixteen American Jurisprudence: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. (Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180)

I hope, by exposing these flaws in our system, that I have opened your eyes to the fact that you have been lied to about how wonderful our system is, and how great were the men who drafted it. We have no means of either controlling, or punishing, those we elect to represent us; and there are no limits to what they can do unless we, putting aside partisan differences, stand up and tell them NO MORE: WE WILL TOLERATE NO MORE!!!

Voting will not, nor has it ever, stopped government from doing things it isn’t supposed to be doing; it is an illusion that your voice matters; that you have some say in what government does. It is an opiate that keeps you addicted to the idea that you need government; that government is something essential, something NECESSARY; that you can’t live without it.

Until you break free of that addiction, break free of the lies you have been taught, you’ll never see freedom. It’s uncomfortable to admit that you’ve believe in lies all your life; that you’ve been played a fool. But the alternative is to live a life in which delusion governs your every action. As Patrick Henry said way back in 1775: For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Henry also said: I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

November 21, 2021

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: bonsai@syix.com.

If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.